The registration of a Taxable Person for VAT (PKP), whether initiated ex-officio or voluntarily, must adhere to rigid administrative procedures as stipulated in PMK-147/PMK.03/2017 to ensure legal certainty for taxpayers. This case originated when CV BJP was sued by the Defendant (DGT) through the issuance of a VAT Underpayment Assessment (SKPKB) for the August 2019 period, arguing that the Plaintiff had been registered as a PKP since 2018. However, the Plaintiff challenged the validity of this status, claiming they never underwent a field verification process, never possessed an active Electronic Certificate, and never received the physical VAT Registration Letter (SPPKP).
The core of this legal conflict lies in the administrative proof by the tax authority regarding the delivery of state documents and the fulfillment of substantive registration requirements. The Defendant insisted that the PKP application was submitted consciously by the Plaintiff's representative; however, in court, the Defendant failed to provide proof of delivery (receipts) for the SPPKP and documentation of the field research, which is a procedural mandate. The Plaintiff strengthened their position by highlighting the Defendant's inconsistent actions—repeatedly revoking and canceling the revocation of the PKP status between 2023 and 2024—which indicated a lack of legal certainty regarding the tax subject’s status.
In its legal considerations, the Board of Judges emphasized that every Administrative Decision (KTUN) issued by tax authorities must be free from defects in authority, procedure, and substance. The Judges ruled that since the Defendant could not prove the lawful execution of the PKP registration and confirmation procedures (including the lack of PKP account activation by the Taxpayer), the tax subject could not be burdened with the obligation to collect VAT. The final verdict declared the tax assessment legally void as it was based on an invalid PKP registration.
Analysis of this decision shows that procedural formalities are not merely supplementary but are the pillars of tax collection legality. The implication for taxpayers is the importance of verifying the validity of their PKP status, especially if there are claims of registration without a survey process. For tax authorities, this ruling serves as a stern reminder that administrative order in document delivery and field documentation is absolute for maintaining assessments at the judicial level. In conclusion, procedural justice precedes substantive justice; without correct procedures, the substance of a tax claim fails.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id