TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shment under the provisions of CGST Act. The 1st petitioner is the managing partner of the 2nd petitioner partnership firm. Ext.P6 is the acknowledgment of the application for registration submitted in the name of the 2nd petitioner firm. The place of business shown in the said application was the building owned by the additional respondents 2 to 4, which was taken on lease, by the 1st petitioner along with his siblings. Ext.P1 is the lease deed dated 30.01.1989, which was executed to enable the 1st petitioner and his siblings, to conduct business in the building covered by the said deed. The application for registration submitted in the name of the 2nd petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent, as per Ext.P8 order, on the ground that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent to allow Ext. P-6 application: C: Pass such other orders as the Petitioner may pray for and this Court may deem fit to grand in the circumstances of the case: D: Award costs of the Petitioner: 4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 1st respondent wherein, the averments contained in the writ petition are denied and the reliefs sought by the petitioners are opposed. It is specifically averred that, as per Form GST REG-01, which is to be submitted under Rule 8(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the documents to be uploaded for GST registration as per the Act, includes a copy of the valid rent/lease agreement with any document in support of the owners/zip of the premises of the lessor like latest property tax rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch partnership for, and to conduct business in the premises, covered by Ext.P1 and P2 lease deed, amounts to sublease, which is not specifically permitted under the lease deed. Therefore, the claim of the 2nd petitioner to get registration, is not legally sustainable, it was pointed out. Therefore, the additional respondents 2 to 4 sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. Premjith Nagendran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. J. Vishnu, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and Smt. Apoorva Ramkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 2 to 4. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, specifically contented that, Ext.P1 and P2 documents would clearly reveal the entitle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contentions with reference to their respective rights based on Ext.P1 and P2 documents, in the form of pleadings, I am of the view that, some observation will have to be made, based on the contentions raised by the parties before this Court, to avoid multiplication of litigation. 10. While considering the said aspects, it is to be noted that, Ext.P1 is the basic lease deed which is executed by the then landlord of the building, in favour of the 1st petitioner and his siblings. As per the same, the 1st petitioner and his siblings were authorized to carryout business activities in the said building, subject to the terms and conditions in Ext.P1. Subsequently, Ext.P2, which is yet another deed, was executed between the parties, where the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of the bidding or not. 12. To be precise, if it is borne out from the records produced along with the application that, the party is in legal possession, the registration cannot be denied. The fact that the land lord raised certain dispute, with regard to the extent of right of the party, which requires interpretation of the terms and conditions in the lease deed by a competent civil court, cannot be a reason, to deny the registration. In such cases, it is for the landlord to invoke the statutory remedies available, by approaching the competent Civil Court including the Rent Control Courts, if any cause of action for such proceedings are attracted. 13. Here, in this case, when that question is considered for the limited purpose ....