Introduction
In the UAE’s rapidly developing tax landscape, the procedures for resolving disputes have become increasingly relevant to businesses and individuals alike. At the heart of this framework lies the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee (“TDRC”)—an administrative body vested with quasi-judicial authority (nature) to review objections to administrative decisions issued by the Federal Tax Authority (“FTA”).
While the legal mechanisms are clear in many respects, questions sometimes arise when the TDRC does not issue a decision within the original timelines stipulated by the law. Can taxpayers escalate their case to court in such situations, or must they await a formal decision? A recent ruling from the Federal Supreme Court (“FSC”) has helped shed light on this issue, though the matter remains one requiring careful legal consideration.
The Applicable Legal Framework
Under Article 33(1) of Federal Decree-Law No. 28 of 2022 on Tax Procedures (“Tax Procedures Law”), the TDRC is required to decide on objections within 20 business days from receipt. This period is extendable by up to 60 additional business days, provided the extension is necessary to resolve the objection, as permitted by Article 25(2) of Cabinet Decision No. 74 of 2023 on the Executive Regulation of the Tax Procedures Law.
If the taxpayer remains unsatisfied with the TDRC’s decision—or if a decision is not issued—Article 36(1) of the Tax Procedures Law permits an appeal to the competent court within 40 business days from the date of notification of the TDRC’s decision, in any of the following cases:
- full or partial objection to the TDRC’s decision (Article 36(1)(a)), or
- non-issuance of a decision by the TDRC in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Procedures Law (Article 36(1)(b)).
While this provision offers a path forward, the law does not explicitly detail how delays by the TDRC should be treated procedurally—particularly in cases where no express extension or decision has been issued.
Federal Supreme Court Guidance
In Judgment No. 388 of 2024 (issued on 14 May 2025), the FSC provided helpful clarification on this issue. The FSC reaffirmed the TDRC’s judicial-like role and noted that its decisions constitute the basis for subsequent judicial review. The FSC emphasized in its analysis that:
- The TDRC’s function is governed by procedural rules similar to those applied by courts (e.g., the applicability of the Civil Procedures Law).
- Appeals to court should be based on a final decision from the TDRC, as this decision forms the subject of the judicial claim.
- The TDRC may extend its decision period when necessary (even beyond 80 business days), and statutory timeframes are to be understood in a procedural, organizational manner.
Accordingly, in that particular case, the Court held that initiating an appeal prior to the issuance of a decision by the TDRC was premature.
This decision offers important insight into how the FSC approached delayed (or extended) TDRC decision. However, it does not negate the availability of Article 36(1)(b), which continues to allow escalation to court in instances of non-issuance—provided the facts of the case support that route.
Points of Legal Interpretation
A key practical question that remains is how to determine when the TDRC’s inaction constitutes sufficient grounds for escalation under Article 36(1)(b). Legal analysis typically considers two perspectives:
- That the TDRC retains jurisdiction beyond the stated deadlines unless and until a formal decision is issued or notification is received; or
- That a lack of timely decision may constitute an implicit rejection, thereby triggering the right to escalate to court.
Each interpretation presents both opportunities and risks, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. For example:
| Interpretation | Possible Advantage | Possible Consideration |
| TDRC retains jurisdiction | Maintains alignment with recent judicial reasoning | May result in loss of the 40-day appeal window if not properly monitored |
| Silence as implicit rejection | Preserves the right to escalate within time | May be challenged as premature if court deems the TDRC’s jurisdiction ongoing |
Contrast with Government Entity Disputes
Interestingly, greater procedural clarity is found in the context of tax disputes involving government entities engaged in sovereign activities. Cabinet Decision No. 12 of 2025 on Regulating the Procedures for the Objections and Appeals of Government Entities in Tax Dispute Resolution, which governs such disputes, provides in Article 5 that failure by the TDRC to issue a decision within the prescribed timeframe is to be treated as an implicit rejection, thereby facilitating escalation.
This contrasts with the general tax dispute framework, which—while also allowing escalation under Article 36(1)(b)—does not expressly define the procedural effect of delayed TDRC decisions. This distinction highlights the importance of contextual legal interpretation and close attention to the specific dispute mechanism applicable to each case.
Practical Guidance for Taxpayers
In light of the above, how should taxpayers respond when facing a delay in the TDRC process?
- EACH SITUATION MUST BE EVALUATED ON ITS OWN FACTS. Among others, factors such as the nature of the objection, communication from the TDRC, and timing of prior decisions will all influence the appropriate course of action and status of objection over TDRC Electronic Portal with the Ministry of Justice.
- Consider communicating with TDRC if escalation is being contemplated, especially in reliance on Article 36(1)(b) of the Tax Procedures Law.
- Weigh the procedural risks of early escalation against the possibility of losing the appeal window by waiting too long.
Given the technical and procedural technicalities involved, seeking legal counsel is highly recommended. The potential consequences of misjudging the timing or basis for an appeal may affect both the admissibility, enforceability and outcome of a case.
Conclusion
The recent FSC decision reinforces the importance of pursuing the procedural stages/requirements in tax dispute resolution. While Article 36(1)(b) of the Tax Procedures Law continues to serve as a lawful basis for court appeals in cases of non-issuance, its application must be carefully assessed within the broader context of UAE tax law and latest judicial trends.
At Habib Al Mulla and Partners, we advise clients to approach such matters with strategic foresight and tailored legal support. The UAE’s tax framework provides multiple safeguards for taxpayers, but its full protection is best realized through informed decision-making and professional guidance.
Seek Legal Counsel
Our expertise in tax law and regulations allows us to provide clients with effective and accurate tax advice, taking into consideration their unique circumstances and needs.
Our tax and financial crimes team, led by our Head of Tax and Financial Crimes, Mohamed El Baghdady, has successfully advised and represented clients across various industries, including, but not limited to, consumer goods and retail, services, real estate, oil & gas and banking and finance, before the Government authorities, tax tribunals and courts. Our clients have been successful in multiple tax disputes before the committees and courts.
For further information, please contact, Mohamed El Baghdady, Partner, Head of Tax and Financial Crimes, on mohamed.elbaghdady@habibalmulla.com.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this information, the article does not offer a guarantee or warranty regarding its content. The matters discussed in this article are subject to interpretation, and legal outcomes may vary based on specific facts and circumstances. We recommend that readers seek individual legal counsel before making any decisions based on the information provided. If you require specific legal advice, please contact us directly.
