9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1298 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of Advance Ruling application - Registration of GST - Registration for multiple companies from same address - requirement to follow GST rules related to Principle Place of Business - HELD THAT - An applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. In the case at hand, entities sharing the work space are to be registered under GST Act and they have to furnish details of principal place of business along with documentary proof for the same. Hence the activity of registration is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the entities sharing the space and not the applicant, who lets out the shared space. The applicant in the instant case has admitted before the authority that the ruling is sought on behalf of their customers who are seeking registration and are facing issues on registration as the principal place of business accommodates multiple units requiring separate registrations. In the instant case the applicant has sought ruling before us on behalf of their customers and the act of registration is not undertaken or to be undertaken by the applicant - this question is not admissible as per Section 97 read with Section 95 of the Act and therefore not admitted. The application is rejected as not admitted as per Section 98(2) read with Section 95(a)/103(1) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.
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"? 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.
|
