Co-owner consent is not required for availing GST registration

[Bimal jain]

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of SATYA DEV SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND 4 OTHERS - 2025 (1) TMI 297 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that the co-owner consent is not required when in the primary document of proof of ownership such as electricity bill, owner’s name is mentioned.

Facts:

Satya Dev Singh (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition against order dated December 14, 2023 and August 09, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”) passed by the Revenue Department wherein the Petitioner being co-owner of the property filed an application for cancellation of GST Registration granted to the Tenant of the property, has been rejected. The said application has been filed on the ground that the consent of the co-owner has not been obtained.

Issue:

Whether co-owner consent is required for availing GST registration?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of SATYA DEV SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND 4 OTHERS - 2025 (1) TMI 297 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:

• Observed that, as per Appellate Authority, following documents would be required for the purpose of GST registration:
  1. For Own premises - Any document in support of the ownership of the premises like latest Property Tax Receipt or Municipal Khata copy or copy of Electricity Bill.
  2. For Rented or Leased premises - A copy of the valid Rent / Lease Agreement with any document in support of the ownership of the premises of the Lessor like Latest Property Tax Receipt or Municipal Khata copy or copy of Electricity Bill
  3. For premises not covered in (a) and (b) above - A copy of the Consent Letter with any document in support of the ownership of the premises of the Consenter like Municipal Khata copy or Electricity Bill copy. For shared properties also, the same documents may be uploaded."
• Noted that, the electricity bill was existing in the name of registered owner, as such there was no requirement of consent letter.
• Opined that, based on the point (a) stated above, there is sufficient compliance of the order passed as the owner’s name has been duly mentioned.
• Held that, the writ petition is dismissed.

 

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])