The Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) corrected PT SH's Input Tax of IDR 2.06 billion, citing formal violations of Article 13 paragraph (9) of the KUP Law in conjunction with PER-24/PJ/2012. The issue arose when PT SH credited a Tax Invoice for assets acquired through a security rights execution by the Indonesia Eximbank (LPEI). However, after the transaction, LPEI unilaterally replaced the Tax Invoice from code 010 to 090 (VAT facility not collected/exempted), causing the DGT system to reject the credit because PT SH did not amend its Tax Return to report the Replacement Invoice.
The core conflict in this dispute lies in the clash between administrative compliance (formal) and material truth (substance). The DGT insisted that any change in Tax Invoice status to "Replaced" in the tax information system requires the buyer to adjust their reporting; otherwise, the right to credit is forfeited. Conversely, PT SH provided a strong argument that the asset acquisition transaction was materially subject to VAT, and the tax payment was made through the execution proceeds mechanism. PT SH emphasized that the seller's unilateral action to change the invoice status to "exempted" without a clear legal basis should not annul the constitutional rights of a taxpayer who has already paid the tax.
The Tax Court Judges, in their resolution, provided a progressive legal consideration by prioritizing the principle of substantive justice. The Bench found concrete evidence that the asset acquisition transaction did occur and the VAT had been fully paid by PT SH. The Judges assessed that the DGT could not legally prove why the transaction should fall under the VAT facility category (code 090) as unilaterally claimed by LPEI through its replacement invoice. Therefore, administrative errors or unilateral actions by the counterparty (seller) cannot cancel the buyer's right to credit Input Tax as long as the material requirements are met.
Analysis of this decision underscores the importance of applying the substance over form doctrine in VAT disputes. This ruling provides legal protection for good-faith buyers from the negligence or errors of the seller in issuing or replacing Tax Invoices. Consequently, taxpayers must maintain evidence of cash flows and primary transaction documents as a defense if formal disputes regarding Tax Invoices arise in the future. In conclusion, the Bench overturned the DGT's correction and granted PT SH's appeal in its entirety, reaffirming that material truth prevails over rigid formal procedures.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id