Saudi Zakat Instalments: Requests, Duration and Cancellation

A right to request instalments requires an approved plan

Article 94 of the Implementing Regulations for Zakat Collection, 1445H, recognises the taxpayer’s right to request instalment payment under Article 118. Article 119 governs cancellation. These provisions distinguish the ability to apply from approval of the requested payment schedule.

ZATCA’s General Guideline, section 7.5.2, explains the request, duration and cancellation rules and illustrates them in Examples 112–114. A company experiencing cash constraints should assemble a supported proposal before the due date becomes a collection problem. Submitting a request does not, by itself, establish a new payment deadline or an automatic stay of collection.

The analysis concerns Zakat dues. A mixed company’s CIT liabilities, VAT debts and any separately announced relief initiative require their own terms. An instalment approval under one regime should not be assumed to govern the others.

Explain the liability, the inability to pay and the proposed solution

Article 118(1)(a) requires the request to identify the Zakat dues payable, the financial years concerned and the reasons the taxpayer cannot pay on the due date, with supporting documents. It must also state the proposed number of instalments, the amount of each instalment and advance payments.

Dariba recommendation: connect the proposal to an actual cash-flow forecast. Explain receipts, essential expenditure, existing commitments and the source of each proposed payment. Identify disputed and undisputed balances separately; an application to reschedule payment should not obscure the status of a separate objection.

The evidence should explain why the company cannot pay immediately and why the proposed plan is credible. A request showing only a low closing bank balance may leave the repayment source unexplained. Conversely, an optimistic forecast without support may not address the liquidity constraint that the request itself asserts.

The response period starts when requirements are complete

Article 118(1)(b) requires ZATCA to study and respond within thirty days from completion of the requirements. Its review takes account of solvency, the scale and nature of the activity and market circumstances.

The starting point matters. The date a partial application is first uploaded is not necessarily the date its requirements are complete. Keep the initial request, subsequent information requests, responses and evidence of completion together.

Dariba analysis: the response period is a procedural requirement, not a deemed-approval rule. The regulation does not say that silence authorises the taxpayer’s proposed schedule. If a response is delayed, follow up through the official channel and obtain the actual decision rather than treating the forecast as an approved arrangement.

Duration is linked to the years covered by the liability

Article 118(1)(c) links the ordinary instalment period to the period for which the liability is due. ZATCA may extend the period, but not beyond twice the number of years covered by the liability. The maximum permitted extension is not an automatic entitlement.

Official example: General Guideline section 7.5.2, Example 112, concerns the Zakat liability for the single year 2024. It identifies an ordinary one-year instalment period and permits ZATCA to extend it by no more than one additional year.

The example explains the statutory duration limit; it does not approve every applicant for two years or prescribe a universal number of monthly instalments. Article 118(2) gives ZATCA authority to determine the dates and amounts. Use the actual approval to establish the payment schedule.

Two consecutive or three separate missed instalments matter

Article 119 requires written notification of cancellation where payment stops for two consecutive instalments or three non-consecutive instalments during the plan, or where ZATCA finds that the dues may not be paid. The dues become immediately payable in those circumstances.

Official example: section 7.5.2, Example 113, describes an approved 2025 plan whose third and fourth instalments are missed consecutively. The guideline explains ZATCA’s right to cancel and treat the dues as immediately payable.

Official example: Example 114 describes a 2024 plan whose second, fourth and sixth instalments are missed. The three separate defaults can likewise lead to cancellation. Paying in intervening months does not remove the significance of three non-consecutive missed instalments.

The separate risk-of-non-payment ground also matters. The provision should not be presented as guaranteeing that a plan continues until a specified number of missed payments has accumulated, regardless of other evidence.

Monitor the written approval and the risk of acceleration

Article 118(2) also permits cancellation where Zakat dues are exposed to loss. Maintain the approval, dates, amounts, advance payments and bank evidence in a schedule that treasury staff can actually operate. Identify payments against the right liability and reconcile their posting.

Dariba recommendation: escalate an expected shortfall before the payment is missed and seek any change formally. An internal decision to defer an instalment, or an adviser’s proposed revised schedule, is not evidence that ZATCA has amended the approval.

Written cancellation under Article 119 is also one of Article 117’s listed events for final dues. A taxpayer receiving such notice should assess the full outstanding exposure promptly rather than budget only for the instalment that was most recently missed. Any challenge to an assessment or decision needs its own Zakat assessment review and applicable procedure.

Keep payment planning and compliance connected

Maintain the underlying returns and supporting records alongside the plan. Record the liability years, requested and approved duration, completion of application requirements, advance payment, each due date and each actual payment.

Dariba analysis: a useful instalment proposal is both an evidence case and an operating plan. It explains the temporary inability to pay, demonstrates the source of repayment and allows the business to identify a default before it threatens the entire arrangement. The statutory right to request relief has practical value when the approved terms can be met and demonstrated.