The PT SBS case serves as a stern warning for taxpayers regarding the risks of indirect audit methods used by the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT). The dispute centers on the correction of the VAT Tax Base (DPP) performed through a gross-up technique on unreported purchase data. The DGT utilized a profit margin ratio approach to determine the delivery value, a move deemed valid by the Board of Judges despite the Taxpayer's objections that it lacked evidence of actual transactions.
The core conflict lies in the differing methodologies for determining turnover. The Defendant (DGT) discovered input tax invoices from counterparties that were not recorded by the Plaintiff. Based on these findings, the Defendant performed a gross-up using an 8.9% profit margin derived from the Taxpayer’s own Corporate Income Tax Return. Conversely, the Plaintiff argued that the delivery of Taxable Goods (BKP) must be proven by actual cash and goods flow, rather than mere mathematical calculations.
In its legal opinion, the Board of Judges emphasized that when a Taxpayer fails to maintain complete bookkeeping, Tax Examiners are authorized to use "other methods" to calculate gross circulation according to PMK 15/PMK.03/2018. The Judges considered the purchase gross-up technique a rational method supported by the Taxpayer’s internal data. Since the Plaintiff was unable to present contracts or source documents to refute the calculation, the Board decided to reject the lawsuit.
This decision underscores the importance of internal data reconciliation before filing tax returns. The implication is that taxpayers can no longer rely solely on arguments regarding the absence of transaction evidence if the DGT has employed a regulation-recognized indirect method. The key lesson is that administrative compliance in recording every goods acquisition is crucial, as any unreported purchase will be treated as capital for unreported sales (hidden turnover).