PT SKL Overturns Billions in VAT Corrections Caused by a Clerical Error.

Tax Dispute of PT SKL, Tbk.: Boundaries of Authority in Third-Party Data Equalization and VAT Base Correction

The tax dispute involving PT SKL, Tbk. serves as a significant precedent regarding the boundaries of tax auditors' authority in performing third-party data equalization. The conflict arose when the Respondent issued a positive correction to the VAT Tax Base (DPP) for December 2021, amounting to IDR 26,201,530,714.00, using a gross-up method on purchase discrepancies. The Respondent based this correction on a comparison between the 2021 Audited Financial Statements (Notes to Financial Statements/CaLK) and the VAT returns, where the purchase figures in the CaLK appeared lower, leading to the assumption of unreported purchases and turnover.

The Core Conflict: Compelling Proof of Clerical Error under PSAK 25 vs. Fixation on Audit Document Formality

The core of the conflict lies in the nature of the evidence utilized. The Petitioner provided compelling proof that the discrepancy was purely a "clerical error," where the figures in the 2021 CaLK actually reflected cumulative data only up to the third quarter (January-September), rather than the full year. The Petitioner took proactive steps by sending a clarification letter to the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and including corrected comparative data in the 2022 Financial Statements, consistent with PSAK 25 principles. Conversely, the Respondent remained fixated on the formality of the audit documents without delving into the company's General Ledger.

Legal Consideration of the Board: Factual Validation of the Interim Report and Cancellation of Baseless Corrections

In its legal consideration, the Board of Judges stated that this was a dispute of factual evidence. The Board found that the figures disputed by the Respondent were indeed identical to the interim report as of September 2021, validating the Petitioner's argument regarding the typographical error. The Judges expanded that the gross-up and prorated allocation methods used by the Respondent were baseless, as they were not supported by material evidence of unreported goods delivery. Consequently, the Board of Judges ruled to fully grant the Petitioner's appeal and cancel the correction.

Ruling Implications and Conclusion: Audited Statements Non-Absoluteness against Substantive Transaction Testing

The implication of this verdict reinforces that Audited Financial Statements, while strong third-party evidence, are not absolute if other material evidence proves an administrative error. Taxpayers are expected to be more diligent in preparing their CaLK; however, tax authorities are also reminded not to rely solely on simple mathematical equalization without substantively testing transaction validity through general ledgers and other supporting documents.

A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here