The right of a Taxable Entrepreneur (Pengusaha Kena Pajak - PKP) to credit Input Value Added Tax (VAT) frequently becomes the primary point of conflict in tax disputes, particularly when the tax authority questions the material validity of the Tax Invoice or its direct relationship to business activities. PT HWH, in Tax Court Decision Number PUT-009274.16/2023/PP/M.IIB Year 2025, successfully overturned the entire VAT Underpayment correction for the July 2018 tax period filed by the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP). This case emphasizes the critical importance of proving causality and maintaining a complete audit trail for taxpayers to secure their right to credit Input VAT under the provisions of Article 9 Paragraph (8) of the Indonesian VAT Law.
The dispute originates from an Input VAT correction established by the DJP in a VAT Underpayment Assessment Letter (SKPKB). The DJP argued that the Input VAT claimed by the Appellant, PT HWH, was non-creditable due to violations of Article 9 Paragraph (8) of the VAT Law. The alleged violations generally relate to suspicions of materially defective Tax Invoices (PPN-C1) or VAT on the acquisition of Taxable Goods (BKP) or Taxable Services (JKP) deemed to have no direct relation to the company's core business activities (Generating, Collecting, and Maintaining Income - 3M).
The Directorate General of Taxes maintained a strict and conservative interpretation, claiming the Appellant failed to provide robust evidence to verify the truth of the underlying transactions, leading to suspicions of fictitious transactions or non-operational expenditures. This correction was aimed at limiting Input VAT solely to acquisitions that were very specific and essential to the company's value chain. Conversely, the Appellant contested the correction with multi-layered arguments. The company presented comprehensive evidence including contracts, proof of goods/services receipt (BAST/DO), bank transfer records detailing payment, and a logical justification that the BKP/JKP were absolutely necessary to support operational activities (production, distribution, and management). This rebuttal effectively shifted the burden of proof back to the DJP.
The Tax Court Panel, after detailed examination of the submitted evidence, concluded that the Respondent's arguments were not supported by convincing proof to nullify the validity of the Input VAT. The Panel implicitly adopted the principle that as long as the Taxpayer acted in good faith and could demonstrate a consistent audit trail (showing the flow of goods/services and the flow of money), the right to credit the Input VAT must be restored. The DJP's failure to present superior counter-evidence (e.g., credible confirmation results or verified data on fictitious suppliers during the relevant tax period) rendered the correction baseless.
This decision serves as an important precedent, highlighting that the evidence in Input VAT disputes is a battle of data integrity. It is insufficient for the Taxpayer to merely possess formally valid Tax Invoices; they must also possess a Business Rationale and internal documentation that explicitly links each acquisition to the business activity, especially for general or overhead costs. The Appellant's victory re-affirms that the tax authority must possess strong factual grounds, transcending procedural assumptions, before it can revoke the right to credit VAT. By granting the Appellant's appeal in its entirety, this Tax Court Decision provides legal certainty for PKPs, confirming that Input VAT that is materially and formally valid, and proven to support business activities, is an inalienable right.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id