Uber India Systems Private Limited vs. Revenue [TU-IDT-02-HC-2026]
Background of the Case
The appellant, Uber India Systems Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 12.06.2024 issued by the GST authorities. The impugned notice sought to demand tax and impose penalties for the financial years 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 through a single consolidated proceeding. Aggrieved by the clubbing of multiple tax periods in one notice, the appellant contended that such action was arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles. It was argued that each financial year constitutes a separate unit of assessment and cannot be combined into a single show cause proceeding. The appellant also sought interim protection restraining the department from proceeding with adjudication. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court at Amaravati.
Arguments by the Appellant
The appellant primarily contended that issuance of a common show cause notice for multiple taxation periods was legally unsustainable. It was submitted that assessments under GST are period-specific, and therefore, separate notices must be issued for each financial year. Reliance was placed on the earlier judgment of the High Court in S.J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner, wherein it was held that different taxation periods cannot be clubbed in a single show cause notice. The appellant argued that the impugned notice violated this settled position of law. It was further submitted that such consolidation causes procedural prejudice and undermines fairness in adjudication. On these grounds, the appellant sought quashing of the notice while leaving liberty to the department to proceed in accordance with law.
Respondent’s Response
The departmental authorities opposed the writ petition and defended the issuance of the impugned show cause notice. It was submitted that the notice was issued within the statutory framework and called upon the appellant to explain why tax and penalties should not be imposed for the relevant periods. The respondents argued that interference at the stage of show cause notice should be limited. The department also sought vacating of the interim protection earlier granted to the appellant. It was contended that the adjudication process should be allowed to proceed in the normal course. However, the principal issue before the Court remained whether multiple financial years could be combined in a single notice.
Court Findings and Decision
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the impugned notice admittedly covered more than one taxation period, namely from 2018–19 to 2020–21. Referring to its earlier decision in S.J Constructions, the Court reiterated that separate show cause notices must be issued for each taxation period or financial year. Following the binding precedent, the Court held that a common notice clubbing different periods is not permissible in law. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 was set aside. However, the Court clarified that the authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law by issuing separate notices. The writ petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”