A Procedural Conundrum: Federal Supreme Court Weighs In on UAE Tax Dispute Deadlines

In the rapidly evolving tax landscape of the UAE, a critical legal debate has emerged concerning the precise moment a taxpayer can escalate a dispute from the administrative level to the courts. This issue centers on the statutory deadline for the Tax Disputes Resolution Committee (TDRC), a body with quasi-judicial authority, to issue its decision.

The tension lies between the explicit statutory timelines designed to ensure swift resolution and the judicial tendency to prioritize a complete administrative decision as the basis for a court appeal. A recent ruling from the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) has provided necessary, though nuanced, guidance on how to interpret this procedural bottleneck.
The Procedural Bottleneck: Deadlines and the Right to Appeal
The conflict arises from the deadlines stipulated in the Federal Decree-Law No. 28 of 2022 on Tax Procedures.

• The Clock Starts: The TDRC is required to decide on objections within 20 business days from receipt, extendable by up to 60 additional business days.
• The Path to Court: Article 36(1) of the Tax Procedures Law allows a taxpayer to appeal the case to the competent court within 40 business days in two specific scenarios:

1. Full or partial objection to the TDRC’s decision.
2. Non-issuance of a decision by the TDRC.
   The core interpretative challenge is determining when the TDRC’s inaction (or “silence”) constitutes a “non-issuance” under Article 36(1)(b), thereby triggering the taxpayer’s 40-day appeal window.
   The Federal Supreme Court’s View: Prioritizing the Decision
   In a pivotal judgment (No. 388 of 2024, issued on 14 May 2025), the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) weighed in, reinforcing the TDRC’s quasi-judicial role and emphasizing that its final decision must form the subject of subsequent judicial review.
   The FSC held that:

• Appeals to court should generally be based on a final decision from the TDRC.
• The TDRC has the discretion to extend its decision period when necessary, and the statutory timeframes are to be understood in a procedural and organizational manner.
  In the specific case reviewed, the FSC concluded that initiating an appeal prior to the issuance of a decision by the TDRC was premature. This decision suggests a judicial tendency to allow the TDRC to retain jurisdiction beyond the prescribed deadlines unless and until a formal decision is eventually issued.
  The Contrast: Silence as Rejection
  The FSC’s approach stands in contrast to the principle of “implicit rejection,” which is often applied in administrative law and is explicitly defined in specific tax dispute contexts:
• TDRC Retains Jurisdiction (FSC Trend): This interpretation generally requires the taxpayer to wait for the TDRC’s decision, even if delayed. The inherent risk is that the taxpayer could lose the 40-day appeal window if the TDRC issues a delayed decision and the taxpayer fails to monitor the status closely.
• Silence as Implicit Rejection (Specific Disputes): Cabinet Decision No. 12 of 2025, which governs tax disputes involving government entities, explicitly states that the TDRC’s failure to issue a decision within the timeframe is to be treated as an implicit rejection, providing clear procedural grounds for escalation—a clarity that is currently missing from the general tax dispute framework.
  This distinction highlights the importance of contextual legal interpretation and the procedural risks involved in prematurely appealing a case where the TDRC’s jurisdiction may still be deemed ongoing.
  Strategic Implications for Taxpayers
  The FSC ruling reinforces the importance of procedural rigor. While Article 36(1)(b) remains a legal avenue for appeal in cases of non-issuance, its application must be strategically evaluated.
  Taxpayers facing delays must:
• Weigh the Risks: Balance the risk of filing a premature appeal (and having it dismissed) against the risk of waiting too long (and losing the 40-day window after a delayed decision is finally issued).
• Monitor Status: Closely track the objection status via the TDRC Electronic Portal.
• Seek Counsel: Given the highly technical interpretation of procedural law, expert legal counsel is essential to avoid procedural pitfalls that could affect the admissibility and ultimate success of the case.
  The FSC’s guidance ensures the judicial review process is built upon a definitive TDRC decision. However, until the law explicitly defines the procedural effect of TDRC inaction in all disputes, taxpayers must navigate this grey area with strategic foresight and caution.