Proof of CPO Volume Loss Saves Taxpayer from VAT: Crucial Lesson on Non-Collected VAT Facility Disputes in Tax Court 

Tax Court Decision Number PUT-002681.16/2024/PP/M.VA Year 2025

Tax Court Decision Number PUT-002681.16/2024/PP/M.VA Year 2025 establishes a critical affirmation that the Value Added Tax (VAT) Non-Collected facility for Crude Palm Oil (CPO) deliveries to Bonded Zones should not be automatically cancelled based solely on a formal quantity difference between the Tax Invoice and customs documents (BC 4.0). This dispute arose when the Respondent (DJP) corrected the VAT Tax Base (DPP), arguing that the CPO tonnage discrepancy could not be proven to have entered the Bonded Zone. Consequently, the Non-Collected VAT facility was considered void, making the VAT generally due in accordance with Article 4 paragraph (1) of the VAT Law. The DJP assumed the discrepancy represented a VAT-taxable supply of Taxable Goods (BKP).

The Core Conflict and Physical Proof

The core conflict in this dispute hinges on the physical proof of goods. The Appellant,PT CCL, firmly rejected the notion of any CPO sales outside the facility.    PT CCL argued that the quantity difference was purely due to natural physical shrinkage of CPO—such as evaporation—which is a reasonable occurrence during sea transportation and temporary storage. The Tax Invoice was issued based on the factory weighing, while the BC 4.0 was based on the surveyor's weighing at the port, which already accounted for the reasonable shrinkage. The sales contract explicitly stipulated that the risk of shrinkage was borne by the buyer.

Legal Considerations and Panel of Judges Ruling

In its legal considerations, the Panel of Judges explicitly rejected the formalistic argument of the Respondent. The Panel adhered to the principle of substance, noting that the Respondent failed to provide evidence of the differential CPO being supplied to any third party outside the Bonded Zone. The Appellant's proof regarding the shrinkage factor, supported by the contract and the difference in weighing points, was accepted as legal fact. Consequently, the Panel ruled that the VAT DPP correction of Rp7,554,940.00 related to this quantity discrepancy was unfounded and must be cancelled, reinforcing the importance of substantive verification in VAT facility disputes. The implication for Taxpayers in the commodity sector is the necessity of strong, detailed documentation regarding shrinkage tolerance and the weighing points used throughout the supply chain.