2025 (1) TMI 297 - HC - GST

Legal Challenge to GST Registration Fails as Documentation Meets Statutory Requirements Under Form REG-01

Satya Dev Singh Versus Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And 4 Others

HC Allahabad dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration, finding sufficient compliance with Form REG-01 requirements. The court determined ... Rejection of application of the petitioner (co-owner) for cancellation of the GST registration granted to the respondent no.5 (another co-owner) - petitioner argues that in terms of clause(c) of the requirement extracted above, apart from the consent letter, other documents such as Municipal Khata or Electricity Bill was required and in the absence of the consent letter, sole reliance on the electricity bill, was wrongly admitted to be the sufficient requirement of the Rules. HELD THAT:- The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the sole reason that the issue would be governed by clause (a), which prescribes that a document in support of the ownership of the premises is required in case of the owner, there is no mention of the resident being sole owner. Petition dismissed. The High Court of Allahabad, presided over by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, addressed a petition challenging orders dated 14.12.2023 and 09.08.2024, which rejected the petitioner's application for cancellation of GST registration granted to respondent no.5. The petitioner, a co-owner of the property with the husband of respondent no.5, argued that GST registration was improperly granted without their consent.The appellate authority examined the requirements for GST registration as outlined in Form REG-01, specifically the 'Proof of Principal Place of Business.' Clause (a) requires ownership documentation, such as a Property Tax Receipt or Electricity Bill, for premises owned by the applicant. Clause (c) requires a consent letter and ownership proof for shared properties.The appellate authority determined that the electricity bill in the name of the registered owner sufficed under clause (a), negating the need for a consent letter. The petitioner's counsel contended that clause (c) necessitated additional documentation, but the court found that clause (a) governed the situation, as it pertained to ownership documentation, not sole ownership.The court concluded that there was 'sufficient compliance' with the requirements, and the authorities correctly rejected the petitioner's application. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with no interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.