Input tax credit disputes frequently become a critical focal point in tax audits, particularly when involving negative confirmation responses and complex non-cash payment mechanisms. In the case of PT HTI, the Respondent (Tax Authority) adjusted the Input Tax based on the alleged absence of convincing cash flow and goods flow, coupled with "Not Found" confirmation replies. However, the core of this conflict lies in the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph (8) and Article 16F of the VAT Law, where the Tax Authority questioned the validity of transactions utilizing net-off or debt-clearing mechanisms.
The Board of Judges provided a resolution by emphasizing that the right to credit Input Tax should not be forfeited solely due to the administrative failures of a counterparty or differences in settlement methods. Through a comprehensive examination of evidence, the Board found that the Petitioner was able to present synchronized Payment Deduction Statements, invoices, and bank statements, thereby materially proving the transaction's authenticity. This analysis carries significant implications for Taxpayers: the existence of detailed supporting documentation can mitigate the risk of adjustments resulting from negative confirmations. In conclusion, as long as the material aspects of a transaction can be proven, the net-off method is a legally valid payment mechanism and does not invalidate the right to credit Input Tax.
VAT Compliance Insight: This judicial precedent limits the arbitrary use of joint and several liability principles under Article 16F of the VAT Law. For corporate entities employing corporate netting, ledger offsets, or clearing agreements, maintaining a clear trail of *Payment Deduction Statements* paired with explicit commercial contract terms ensures that negative cross-examinations by the DGT will be rejected by the court.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id