Saudi Tax Committee Hearings and Expert Evidence

Prepare for the actual hearing and written procedure

Rules 15–26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Zakat, Tax and Customs Committees govern hearings and evidence. Rules 42–44 address abandonment, suspension and recusal. This guide concerns Zakat and tax disputes under that framework, read with the case’s actual directions.

Rule 15 provides for written proceedings and allows oral submissions remotely or in person at the chamber’s discretion. A remote hearing has the procedural effect of an in-person hearing. Rule 17 requires a hearing record identifying the session and recording its events and procedures.

Dariba recommendation: prepare a concise issue schedule, the relief sought, the relevant provisions and a cross-reference to the evidence. Confirm representation, hearing access and responsibility for monitoring notices. A well-organised written file remains important even where an oral hearing is expected.

Distinguish the decision period from a guaranteed completion date

Rule 18 provides for a decision within thirty days from the first hearing, with an extension of up to fifteen further days where the case requires it. The starting event is the first hearing, not the first application or initial objection to ZATCA.

Other provisions address evidence, experts and suspension. The stated period should not be converted into a guarantee that every case will conclude within thirty days of filing, regardless of its procedural circumstances.

Dariba analysis: budget and case planning should use the actual procedural record. Track directions, expert work and any permitted suspension rather than assuming that expiry of an expected timetable automatically determines the merits.

Absence can affect the claim without deciding its substance favourably

Under Rule 19, if a notified claimant misses a hearing without an accepted excuse, the chamber must decide a case ready for decision. If it is not ready, the chamber strikes it from the list. Failure to request resumption within thirty days of striking, or another absence after resumption, leads to a decision treating the claim as though it had not been brought. The rule makes that decision final and not appealable, while allowing a new claim only subject to the applicable time limit.

Rule 20 also provides circumstances where a decision against an absent defendant is treated as issued in the defendant’s presence, including the stated notification, defence-submission or earlier-attendance cases. Absence does not necessarily secure the separate default-decision route.

Rule 21 generally treats a party not present within thirty minutes of the scheduled start as absent, subject to the chamber’s extension and the exception for arrival before the hearing begins. Dariba recommendation: attend on time and seek an accepted procedural response to a genuine difficulty; the rule is not a recommended thirty-minute grace period.

Present admissible evidence and address the other side’s materials

Rule 22 refers to the methods of proof under the Evidence Law. Rule 23 allows the chamber to inspect, investigate further or commission the hearing of relevant witness evidence. These powers do not remove the taxpayer’s need to establish the facts supporting its position.

Rule 24 prevents reliance on a party’s papers or memoranda without giving the other party an opportunity to inspect them. Dariba recommendation: identify material received, what has been made available and the response required. Raise a specific access concern through the case process if a document is relied on but has not been provided.

The merits should connect each fact to the actual evidence. A summary schedule can help explain a large file, but it should remain traceable to the supporting records rather than replace missing proof with assertion.

A chamber-appointed expert must be approached through the Secretariat

Rule 25 permits appointment of one or more experts where needed. Neither party may communicate with the appointed expert, nor the expert with a party, except through the General Secretariat. This restriction applies to the chamber-appointed expert and should not be overlooked when arranging technical explanations.

The appointment decision defines the task, report deadline and fee responsibility. A taxpayer should read that task before assuming the expert has been asked to decide every legal or factual question in the dispute.

Dariba recommendation: provide requested information through the authorised channel, keep an indexed record and identify any mismatch between the commissioned question and the records supplied. Do not treat a private technical opinion and the chamber-appointed report as procedurally identical.

Expert fees and reporting have their own conditions

Rule 25 provides for payment of the specified fees within the appointed period. If the responsible party fails, the other party may pay and, if successful, seek the amount the chamber determines. If neither party pays and the case depends on the expert report, the chamber may suspend proceedings until payment.

Rule 26 requires the expert to submit within the appointed period or explain the delay. Any extension remains subject to the rule’s reference to Rule 18. A delay does not automatically make the taxpayer’s preferred technical result correct.

Dariba recommendation: diarise the fee and evidence requirements with the merits work. Confirm who must pay and retain the actual payment evidence. An argument that an expert is needed should include an operational plan for enabling that work.

Failure to complete a required step can amount to abandonment

Rule 42 addresses failure to carry out a requested step necessary for deciding the claim. The relevant period is the specified deadline or fifteen days from the request, whichever is longer. A reasoned request may obtain an extension of no more than fifteen further days.

This is different from the fifteen-day deficiency period for initially registering a claim, and from absence at a hearing. Each has its own trigger and consequence.

Dariba recommendation: record what the chamber requested, why it matters, the applicable date and the filed response. If an extension is necessary, seek it with reasons and retain the actual decision. An internal intention to respond later is not an approved extension.

A suspension needs a basis and a plan to resume

Rule 43 permits an agreed suspension for no more than 180 days from the chamber’s approval. If the parties do not resume within ten days after that period ends, the claimant is treated as having abandoned the claim. Where deciding another issue is necessary, the chamber may suspend the case; once the ground ends, the rule provides for resumption and a ten-day request period, with the stated consequence for inaction.

Paragraph 3 separately permits suspension by agreement for a mutual agreement procedure under an effective double-tax treaty. If the chamber approves, the suspension lasts until that procedure is decided, regardless of the ordinary suspension period. A request alone does not establish that approval.

Dariba analysis: identify the reason for suspension, the approval, the event ending it and the responsible person. Do not apply the 180-day cap mechanically to an approved treaty-procedure suspension or assume that every paused case resumes without action.

Raise recusal issues through the prescribed process

Rule 44 addresses recusal and disqualification under the relevant procedural laws and specifies the decision route for a chamber member, a chair and an appellate chair. It provides for replacement arrangements and a reasoned decision; a member subject to mandatory recusal must notify the relevant authority.

Dariba recommendation: identify the specific ground and supporting facts and use the prescribed route. A disappointing procedural decision or disagreement with an interpretation is not, by itself, proof of disqualification.

Maintain the complete hearing and evidence record for the eventual decision and appeal review. The next step depends on the actual decision, its status and dates, not simply whether the party is dissatisfied with the outcome.