Pasar Jaya asked to pay Rp 6.5b in tax arrears
Pasar Jaya asked to pay Rp 6.5b in tax arrears
JAKARTA (JP): The tax court has rejected an appeal by PD Pasar Jaya, the Jakarta administration-owned company managing marketplaces in the capital, to wave its value added tax arrears of around Rp 6.5 billion (US$2.83 million).
Tax Director General Fuad Bawazier confirmed the tax court's decision yesterday, saying that Pasar Jaya has no choice but to pay the tax.
He, however, said that his office would still listen to the company, especially regarding the settlement procedure of the unpaid tax.
"I have contacted the (Jakarta) governor to coordinate the settlement of the unpaid tax," he said in response to the decision of the tax court.
Pasar Jaya made an appeal to the tax court recently after the Tax Director General refused to pardon the company's unpaid value added tax.
Earlier reports said that Pasar Jaya owed around Rp 26.06 billion to the government in value added tax arrears (including fines) during the period between 1989 and March this year.
Fuad, however, said that the amount of Pasar Jaya's tax arrears is around Rp 6.5 billion.
Pasar Jaya, with total assets of Rp 163 billion, operates 163 small and medium-size marketplaces in the capital.
The dispute between Pasar Jaya and the tax office has been widely publicized. City councilors mostly criticized the tax office's refusal to give special treatment to the company, which operates most of its shopping facilities for financially weak traders.
Moreover, the company has never collected value added tax from traders who use their shopping facilities, they said in supporting the company.
Tax officials, on the other hand, defended the decision, saying that it was the company's own mistake in not collecting the tax.
According to the regulation, Pasar Jaya must pass on the value added tax collected from clients to the tax office.
A source said that Pasar Jaya's failure in winning the appeal was partly caused by its inability to provide reliable financial reports to the tax court.
Development and Monetary Supervisory Board gave no opinion about the company's financial reports for 1988 and 1989 which lacked proof of both revenues and expenses. (hen)