High Court of Kerala15 July 2026

Nayan Jitendra Shah v. Superintendent

For revenue

WP(C) NO. 47520 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Rejection of GST registration application for failure to establish lawful possession of premises was upheld where lease documents did not establish tenancy in favour of applicant partnership firm and application was not accompanied by authorization from other lessees; petitioner was permitted to submit fresh application with necessary documents

Provisions considered

CGST S.25

Section 25 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

High Court of Kerala15 July 2026

Nayan Jitendra Shah v. Superintendent

For revenue

WP(C) NO. 47520 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

CGST S.25

Section 25 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Members

Read the full analysis

The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.

Free to join. No card required.

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

Case details

Forum: High Court of Kerala
Bench: ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
Decided on: 15 Jul 2026
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 47520 OF 2025
Outcome: In favour of the revenue
Tax area: GST
Topic: Registration

Delhi High Court8 Sept 2026

For revenue

Neha v. Union of India

Where biometric AADHAR-based authentication was not fully implemented despite ministerial statement, resulting in continued fraudulent registrations using stolen or frozen PAN/AADHAR, authorities nationwide were directed not to allow any GST registration without mandatory biometric-based AADHAR authentication to prevent revenue loss and harassment of innocent persons

Delhi High Court1 Sept 2026

Neha v. Union of India

Where writ petitions sought directions to authorities to curb rampant fake GST registrations using PAN and Aadhaar, and respondents had failed for nearly nine years to effectively address issue, with even deputed police officials unaware of problem, respondents were given a final opportunity to propose and implement an effective solution, failing which further appropriate orders would be passed

Madras High Court14 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Eclipse Hospitality LLP (Earlier known as Viralminda Properties LLP) v. Superintendent of Central Excise GST Range I Adyar Division Chennai South

Where petitioner’s application for fresh registration was rejected solely for non- filing of returns up to cancellation date after statutory due date for doing so had expired and no extension notification was issued, petitioner could not be compelled to do an impossible act, making rejection unsustainable and authorities were directed to reconsider subject to fulfillment of remaining registration conditions

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Related rulings

Neha v. Union of India

Neha v. Union of India

Eclipse Hospitality LLP (Earlier known as Viralminda Properties LLP) v. Superintendent of Central Excise GST Range I Adyar Division Chennai South

Read the full analysis