GST registration from shared address requires individual applications, advance ruling rejected for third-party queries under Section 97

The AAR Tamil Nadu rejected an advance ruling application regarding GST registration requirements for multiple companies operating from the same address. The authority held that applicants can only seek advance rulings for supplies they undertake or propose to undertake themselves. Since the applicant sought the ruling on behalf of customers facing registration issues rather than for their own registration activities, the application was inadmissible under Section 97 read with Section 95 of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017. The application was rejected under Section 98(2) read with Section 95(a)/103(1) as the registration activity was not undertaken by the applicant but by the entities sharing the workspace.

---

---

Issues:
Can GST registrations be allowed for multiple companies from the same address, provided they follow all GST rules related to "Principle Place of Business"Rs.

Analysis:
The applicant, a company offering co-working spaces, sought an Advance Ruling on whether multiple companies can have GST registrations from the same address. The applicant leases office spaces to start-up companies, providing various amenities and services. They mentioned that due to high rental costs in big cities like Chennai, many start-ups opt for co-working spaces. The applicant stated compliance with Rule 18 of CGST Rules regarding the display of GST details and Section 35 of the CGST Act on maintaining accounts. They highlighted that their customers are service-based companies, hence certain provisions of Section 35 are not applicable. The applicant underwent a virtual hearing, where they explained their business model and the need for clarity on GST registrations for their clients.

The jurisdictional authorities raised concerns during the proceedings. They noted discrepancies in the agreements issued by the applicant and the actual space allocation to customers. The authorities highlighted issues with identifying specific companies within the shared space for verification purposes. They also pointed out the absence of separate boards displaying GST numbers for individual taxpayers in the premises. The authorities expressed apprehensions that the current practice could lead to fake registrations and misuse of GST provisions.

Upon careful examination of the facts, documents, and submissions, the Authority observed that the ruling was sought on behalf of the applicant's customers facing registration issues due to shared spaces requiring separate registrations. The Authority determined that the registration activity was to be undertaken by the entities sharing the space, not the applicant. Consequently, the question raised was deemed inadmissible under Section 97 read with Section 95 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Authority emphasized that the ruling pronounced would be binding only on the applicant, not their clients. Referring to a previous ruling from the Authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala, the Authority clarified that the decision would apply solely to the applicant. Therefore, without delving into the case's merits, the Authority rejected the application as inadmissible under Section 98(2) read with Section 95(a)/103(1) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.

In conclusion, the application seeking clarification on GST registrations for multiple companies from the same address was rejected by the Authority, citing inadmissibility based on the provisions of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.

---