Pending civil dispute over title to premises cannot be ground for refusing to add godown as additional place of business; proper officer must confine verification to prescribed documents: GSTAT Bengaluru

The Tribunal held that registration is a tool of tax administration, not a determination of title — if GST authorities accept they cannot decide ownership, they cannot make a civil decree a condition for recording a place of business.

In a detailed and analytically rigorous order, the GSTAT Bengaluru Bench has set aside the rejection of an application to add a godown as an additional place of business, holding that neither the proper officer nor the appellate authority may reject such an application solely because the title to the premises is the subject of a pending civil dispute between other persons [M/s Sri Subramanya Stores v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka].

The Bench of Prabhakaran P.M. (Judicial Member) and Ravi Jesuraj S. (Technical Member) held that the statutory definition of 'place of business' under Section 2(85) looks at what is done at a place — not who owns it. A certificate recording a godown as a place of business neither makes the taxpayer its owner nor defeats anyone's claim.

The Tribunal observed that if the GST authorities accept they cannot decide title, they cannot then make the outcome of a title suit a condition for recording a place of business — doing so would amount to deciding, in effect, that the applicant has no right to be in the premises until a civil court says otherwise. The Revenue itself has a direct interest in every godown being declared — the Department's own enforcement wing had found the appellant's goods in the godown and proposed a penalty for not declaring it.

The Tribunal distinguished Parveez Ahmad Baba v. Union Territory of J&K — relied upon by the Revenue — as a case concerning rival claimants to the same business premises, unlike the present case where no one else sought registration for the godown.

The application was remitted to the proper officer for a fresh decision confined to the statutory requirements — valid lease agreement, one listed document in support of lessor's ownership, and verification of existence and use — with a direction that the application shall not be rejected for pendency of civil proceedings, want of a civil decree, or conclusive original ownership documents.

2026-juristway.com-2954-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST  |  GSTAT, Bengaluru  |  APL/199/BUR/2026  |  14.10.2026