The dispute over Value Added Tax (VAT) on public transportation services has intensified following the issuance of Decision Number PUT-005369.16/2024/PP/M.IA Year 2025, which rejected the appeal of PT STN. The core of the dispute focuses on the interpretation of Article 4A paragraph (3) letter j of the VAT Law regarding the limitations of public road transportation services not subject to VAT, specifically within inter-company (affiliated) transaction schemes.
The conflict began when the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) corrected the VAT Base for the December 2020 period amounting to IDR 3.33 billion. The DGT assessed that the transaction between PT STN and PT SELOG was not a public transportation service but rather a vehicle rental service. Conversely, PT STN argued that the entire fleet used yellow license plates and referred to SE-119/PJ/2010, which states that public transportation services remain non-taxable even if conducted through leasing or chartering.
The Board of Judges conducted a thorough review of the cooperation agreement and found that the substance of the agreement was the provision of vehicle units (rental), not an operational goods transportation contract. The Judges emphasized that the "available to the public" requirement was not met because the vehicles were provided exclusively for the interests of SELOG. Another crucial fact was the existence of a clause in the contract agreeing to VAT collection, which was considered an admission by the parties that the transaction was a Taxable Service (JKP).
This decision reaffirms that the formal use of yellow license plates does not automatically exempt a transaction from VAT if the economic substance is vehicle leasing. The implication for Taxpayers is the need to synchronize formal aspects (permits/plates), contract substance, and operational execution to avoid significant tax correction risks in the future.
Logistics Sector VAT Takeaway: In conclusion, the Board of Judges upheld the DGT's correction because PT STN was proven to have provided vehicle rental services subject to VAT, rather than the claimed public transportation services.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here