A foreign e-commerce platform serving Vietnamese buyers has two entirely separate reporting tracks to the Vietnamese State: e-commerce activity reporting to the e-commerce management authority — on sellers, transaction scale and complaint handling on the platform; and tax declaration and payment as a foreign supplier to the tax authority. Confusing these two tracks, or forgetting the first because “tax is already paid”, is the most common compliance error of cross-border platforms.
Must a foreign platform report sales in Vietnam?
Yes. Current Vietnamese e-commerce law — E-commerce Law No. 122/2025/QH15 and Decree 248/2026/ND-CP — places on platform operators, including foreign platforms providing services to users in Vietnam within management scope, the duty of periodic reporting on the platform’s activity on the Vietnamese market to the e-commerce management authority. Report content covers the platform’s operating situation: the number and aggregate information of sellers, transaction scale and sales arising in Vietnam, the receipt and handling of consumer complaints, and the handling of infringing goods and shops on the platform.
Sales reporting in this track is activity management reporting, serving statistics and market supervision — it neither replaces nor duplicates tax declaration. A platform may pay tax in full via the foreign supplier mechanism while still violating the e-commerce activity reporting duty, and vice versa. The enforcement fulcrum of the reporting duty lies in the new law’s cross-border platform management mechanism: the management authority may require information provision, inspect compliance and apply escalating management measures to an uncooperative platform, so periodic reporting should be operated as a standing compliance process in the platform’s operating calendar for the Vietnamese market, not a reactive task when asked.
To which authority and at what frequency are reports submitted?
The e-commerce activity reporting track goes to the State management authority for e-commerce — the Ministry of Industry and Trade at central level and Departments of Industry and Trade by management decentralisation — under the periodic reporting regime prescribed in the framework of E-commerce Law No. 122/2025/QH15 and Decree 248/2026/ND-CP, with an annual periodic reporting cycle as the base cycle, plus ad-hoc reporting and information provision whenever the management authority requires it during supervision, complaint handling or violation investigation. Submission form follows the management authority’s guidance — via the e-commerce management information system and electronic documents under published processes.
The second track is entirely different: the foreign supplier’s tax declaration is performed via the dedicated Electronic Portal for Foreign Suppliers of the Vietnamese tax authority, on a quarterly declaration cycle, including tax registration, declaration of revenue from Vietnamese buyers and payment of the foreign supplier’s value added tax and corporate income tax under the current mechanism. The two tracks have two different receiving systems, two different data types and two different violation regimes — the platform’s compliance team needs two separate processes, and consistent reconciliation of figures between the two tracks (management-reported sales versus tax-declared revenue) is part of risk governance, because unexplained differences between the two number sets are the first risk signal when authorities cross-check data.
What happens if reports are not filed?
Failing to perform periodic reporting, reporting falsely or not providing information when the management authority requires it is an administrative violation in the e-commerce field, fined under the current sanctions framework applicable to this field, with measures compelling proper performance of the reporting duty and publicising the violation as prescribed. For a cross-border platform, the more significant consequence beyond fines sits in the management escalation ladder: the e-commerce management authority may require remediation within a deadline, raise supervision intensity over the platform, and in cases of prolonged non-compliance apply management measures to the platform’s operation in Vietnam under the mechanism of E-commerce Law No. 122/2025/QH15 — the ultimate risk for a platform being restriction of market access ability.
Another consequence layer is data: when a platform does not report, the management authority still holds figures from cross-check sources — foreign supplier tax data, payment data, customs and consumer complaints — and the existence of independent cross-check data makes non-reporting unable to conceal the operating scale, only turning it into a violation with ready evidence. The sensible compliance strategy for a serious platform is therefore proactive, on-time reporting, keeping one consistent figure explanation file for both the tax and e-commerce reporting tracks.
Operating reporting as a standing process
Three practices turn reporting from a burden into infrastructure: one, design the platform’s Vietnam data systems so reporting fields — sellers, transactions, sales, complaints, violation handling — are extracted automatically by the exact definitions of the report forms, avoiding manual aggregation each period; two, designate a market compliance point responsible for the reporting calendar and archiving submission and receipt records; three, cross-reconcile activity report figures against quarterly tax declaration figures to detect differences before the management authority does.
In the larger picture, periodic reporting is part of the “social licence” for a cross-border platform to operate in Vietnam: together with activity registration or notification under e-commerce law, seller management and consumer protection duties, it forms the minimum compliance package of a platform treating the Vietnamese market as a long-term market. A platform handling this package well will have a stable working relationship with the management authority; a platform evading it accumulates risk exponentially as the State’s cross-check data grows ever more complete.
Frequently asked questions
Must a foreign platform report sales in Vietnam?
Yes. A foreign e-commerce platform operator within management scope must perform periodic reporting on activity in Vietnam — including transaction scale and sales arising on the Vietnamese market, seller information, complaint handling and infringing goods — under E-commerce Law No. 122/2025/QH15 and Decree 248/2026/ND-CP. This is activity management reporting to the e-commerce management authority, entirely separate from the foreign supplier tax declaration filed quarterly to the tax authority; performing the tax track does not substitute this reporting track.
To which authority and at what frequency are reports submitted?
E-commerce activity reports go to the State management authority for e-commerce — the Ministry of Industry and Trade centrally and Departments of Industry and Trade by decentralisation — under the periodic reporting regime with an annual base cycle under the framework of E-commerce Law No. 122/2025/QH15 and Decree 248/2026/ND-CP, plus ad-hoc reporting and information provision when the management authority requires. Separately, the foreign supplier’s tax declaration runs through the tax authority’s Electronic Portal for Foreign Suppliers on a quarterly cycle. The two tracks differ in receiving authority, data and handling regime, so the platform must operate two separate compliance processes.
What is the penalty for not reporting?
Not reporting, false reporting or failing to provide information when required is an administrative violation in the e-commerce field, fined under the current sanctions framework with compulsory proper performance and possible publicising of the violation. For a cross-border platform, the greater risk beyond fines is the management escalation ladder under E-commerce Law No. 122/2025/QH15: remediation orders, raised supervision and, on prolonged non-compliance, management measures on the platform’s operation in Vietnam up to restricting market access. Authorities also hold cross-check data from tax, payments and customs, so non-reporting cannot conceal the operating scale.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council