The Value Added Tax (VAT) dispute involving PT KGP centered on the disqualification of Input Tax credits amounting to IDR 148,889,049 by the tax authorities due to systemic validation failures. The Respondent issued corrections based on VAT invoice confirmation results via the DGT portal which returned a "Non-Existent" (Tidak Ada) response, indicating that the selling Taxable Person (PKP) had not reported the invoices in their VAT returns. This situation triggered administrative and legal sanctions that disregarded the economic substance of the actual transactions.
The core of the conflict began when the Respondent insisted on third-party reporting formalities as an absolute requirement for crediting per KEP-754/PJ./2001. Conversely, PT KGP, as the Petitioner, asserted their status as a good-faith buyer. The company had fulfilled its obligations by paying the VAT to the seller, evidenced by invoices and bank transfer slips. The Petitioner argued that the counterparty's non-compliance in reporting VAT should not be burdened upon the buyer, especially when all supporting transaction documents are complete and valid under Article 9 paragraph (8) of the VAT Law.
The Board of Judges provided a resolution by prioritizing the principle of substance over form. In its legal considerations, the Board stated that a "Non-Existent" confirmation response is merely an initial lead and not final evidence to void a taxpayer's rights. Since the Petitioner was able to present comprehensive evidence of cash and goods flow during the trial, the Board ruled that the tax burden had indeed shifted. Furthermore, the Board emphasized that Joint and Several Liability under Article 33 of the KUP Law cannot be applied because the Taxpayer successfully demonstrated proof of tax payment to the seller.
Analysis of this decision underscores the importance of robust internal documentation for Taxpayers facing system-based audits by the DGT. The implication of this ruling provides legal certainty that Input Tax credit rights are protected as long as the Taxpayer can materially prove the existence of the transaction. This decision serves as a vital precedent that third-party administrative negligence does not automatically eliminate the constitutional rights of a compliant Taxpayer. In conclusion, strengthening transaction record management (cash and goods flow) is the best defense in mitigating VAT disputes caused by external counterparty factors.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id