The Andhra Pradesh High Court has annulled a consolidated GST show cause notice (SCN) directed at Uber India Systems Private Limited, which encompassed several financial years. The court ruled that the issuance of separate notices is mandated for each discrete tax period, emphasising the necessity for clarity and specificity in tax-related communications.
The Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar has noticed that assessment and tax obligation determination for each taxation period needs to be undertaken independently. Issuing a common SCN by clubbing different tax periods is not allowed. The impugned notice covered more than one taxation period.
Superintendent, Siripuram CGST Range imposes an SCN on Uber India, asking the company to elaborate why GST, interest, and penalties should not be charged for the tax periods spanning 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The notice suggested demands for multiple years in a single, consolidated proceeding.
Uber India, dissatisfied with this, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the impugned notice on the ground that clubbing various assessment years into a single SCN is contrary to regulation and breaches the norms of natural justice. The company asked for an interim safeguard against adjudication and any coercive measures during the pendency of the writ petition.
The issue before the Court was whether the tax department can issue one composite SCN for multiple and different taxation periods, or whether separate SCNs are obligatory for each financial year or tax period.
Uber India relied upon an earlier decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.J. Constructions v.s Assistant Commissioner, where it was stated that each assessment year includes a separate cause of action and should be preceded by an independent SCN.
Read Also: Why You Need Sales Reconciliation in the GST Software
The HC set aside the impugned SCN on June 12, 2024. The Court mentioned that the order does not prevent the tax authorities from commencing fresh proceedings under the law by issuing separate notices for each pertinent tax period.
| Case Title | Uber India Systems Private Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax Superintendent, CGST Range |
| Write Petition No | 19740/2024 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Sai Sundeep Manchikalapudi |
| Counsel For Respondent | Santhi Chandra (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court | Read Order |
