You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 30, 2025

Regulatory Reforms Expand Thai Tax Court’s Criminal Jurisdiction

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has introduced a comprehensive overhaul of its tax litigation procedures that will significantly impact how tax disputes are handled. The Regulations for Tax Cases B.E. 2568 (2025) take effect on November 24, 2025, and repeal the prior B.E. 2544 (2001) regulations in full. These regulations support the implementation of the Act on the Establishment of the Tax Court and Tax Case Procedure (No. 3) B.E. 2568 (2025), which expands the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to certain criminal tax matters. Published in the Government Gazette on October 14, 2025, the regulations have been reorganized into three parts covering civil cases, criminal cases, and forms, and are designed to accelerate proceedings, tighten evidentiary discipline, and modernize court operations.

Structural Reform and Scope

The prior regime governed only civil tax disputes. Under the new framework, the regulations introduce a dedicated chapter for criminal cases alongside updated civil procedures, as the Tax Court now has express authority to adjudicate specified criminal tax offenses. Select mechanisms applied in civil case proceedings, such as electronic communication, recording testimony, and appointing experts, also apply to criminal proceedings mutatis mutandis where they do not conflict with criminal procedure.

Civil Cases: Evidence Submission, Deadlines, and Scheduling

Parties must submit, together with the witness list, originals of all documentary evidence, media, or electronic data (such as files, USB drives, or CDs), and all physical evidence in the party’s possession. Failure to submit any original within the deadline (see below) results in a loss of the right to adduce that item at trial, subject only to narrow exceptions where submission is impossible due to force majeure or where receipt of the evidence is indispensable to the interests of justice. The practical impact is that parties are now obligated to assemble and verify all original documents and data at the very start of the case to meet the strict filing requirements.

The deadline to file witness lists and related evidentiary requests will now be at least 15 days before the hearing to determine the disputed issues—compared to the previous regulation, which set the deadline at 30 days before the hearing to determine the disputed issues.

The court also assumes a more active scheduling role. Upon accepting a complaint, the court must fix hearing dates and promptly notify the parties.

Criminal Cases: New Procedures and Interim Provincial Court Roles

The regulations’ new criminal chapter operationalizes the act’s expansion of Tax Court jurisdiction over criminal tax matters.

At the pretrial stage in provinces outside Bangkok, the provincial court acts on behalf of the Central Tax Court for investigative measures. These include issuing arrest and search warrants, granting or denying temporary release, ordering detention, and approving extensions of time to file charges.

Complaints may be filed with the provincial court where the offense occurred or is claimed or believed to have occurred, where the accused resides or was apprehended, or where the investigation was conducted. The provincial court must then notify the Central Tax Court, which assumes control of the case.

For cases filed by private plaintiffs, the provincial court will forward the original complaint to the Central Tax Court to schedule preliminary hearings.

For cases filed by public prosecutors, the provincial court will forward a copy of the complaint to the defendant and inquire whether the defendant has an attorney. The provincial court will then read and explain the complaint to the defendant and interrogate the defendant. Thereafter, the provincial court will forward the original complaint and the records of the defendant’s plea to the Central Tax Court for the decision on whether to conduct a preliminary hearing or accept the complaint.

For a case filed by a public prosecutor where the defendant pleads guilty and no witness examination is required for adjudication, coordination between the courts permits prompt adjudication. If a ruling is not made on the same day, the Central Tax Court may grant the defendant temporary release.

For trial proceedings, the Central Tax Court may select among three venues or modalities: hearings at the Central Tax Court in Bangkok, assignment of a Central Tax Court judge to preside at the local provincial court, and hearings conducted by videoconference, with the parties appearing at the provincial court under supervision and the proceeding being legally deemed to have occurred in the Central Tax Court’s courtroom. Witness testimony may likewise be taken remotely in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

Provincial courts may manage preliminary steps, such as serving complaints and recording pleas, but do not adjudicate the merits.

For defendants in the provinces, this framework offers greater convenience for pretrial matters at the local court, while preserving centralized adjudication through flexible in-person, traveling-judge, or videoconference formats.

Parallel Civil and Criminal Tracks

In many tax disputes, both civil cases (such as appeals against tax assessments) and criminal cases (such as allegations of tax evasion) can arise from the same set of facts. The regulations maintain clear procedural separation of the cases in such a scenario. Parties facing both types of cases must plan and resource parallel litigation strategies, each with distinct timelines, filings, and evidentiary demands.

Practical Considerations

The regulations modernize Thailand’s tax litigation framework by accelerating case management, tightening evidentiary discipline, and extending the Tax Court’s reach to criminal matters with clear procedures and interim provincial court support.

Success under the new regime turns on preparation. Parties must ensure that all original documents, electronic media, and physical evidence are compiled, validated, and ready for submission well in advance of the 15-day witness list deadline. For criminal matters arising outside Bangkok, parties should anticipate local pretrial engagement at provincial courts and be prepared for trials to proceed either at the Central Tax Court, before a traveling tax judge, or via videoconference deemed to take place in the Central Tax Court’s courtroom.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More