The Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) holds attributive authority under Article 12 paragraph (3) of the KUP Law to determine the amount of tax due through audit procedures if objective data is found to be unreported. In the dispute of PT BSJS, the Respondent applied a cash flow test technique on M Bank and B Bank accounts, resulting in a discrepancy of IDR 34,156,444 identified as a delivery of taxable goods (BKP) for which VAT had not been collected.
The core of the conflict began when PT BSJS claimed that the incoming funds were largely settlements of receivables from previous periods or temporary loans that did not constitute VAT objects for the December 2018 tax period. However, during the trial process, the Petitioner was unable to present adequate documentary evidence, such as complete bank statements or subsidiary ledgers of accounts receivable that could verify the origin of each incoming transaction in detail.
The Board of Judges, in its legal opinion, emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner. Due to the Petitioner's failure to provide competent evidence supporting its rebuttal, the Board of Judges held that the Respondent's assumption stating the incoming funds were business turnover became legally valid. Consequently, the Board of Judges decided to uphold the Respondent's correction on this cash flow item. This case serves as a crucial reminder for Taxpayers that financial administrative discipline and the retention of external transaction evidence are key when facing indirect audit techniques by tax authorities.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id