Collector Failed to Remit VAT: Why Is the Seller Liable? Insights from PT RI’s Legal Victory

VAT Dispute Analysis: PT RI and the Reclassification Policy

The VAT dispute involving PT RI arose from the tax authority's reclassification of deliveries to VAT Collectors into self-collected deliveries due to missing payment data (NTPN). The Directorate General of Taxation (DGT) argued that under Article 12(3) of the KUP Law, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the counterparty has remitted the tax. In contrast, PT RI maintained that Article 16A of the VAT Law explicitly mandates the Collector (Government/SOE) to collect and remit the tax, asserting that third-party negligence should not penalize a seller who has correctly issued Tax Invoices.

The Board of Judges' Ruling and Legal Protections

The Board of Judges ruled that the DGT failed to demonstrate any cash flow indicating VAT payments from the buyer to the seller, which would be necessary to justify the reclassification. The Court emphasized that Article 16A shifts the remittance responsibility to the collector, and the tax authority should perform internal confirmations between tax offices before issuing assessments. Furthermore, the DGT's attempt to amend the objection decision during the trial was declared invalid for exceeding the 12-month statutory limit. This decision reinforces taxpayer protection against the administrative failures of designated tax collectors.