Leasehold Transfer Not a Supply Under GST

By Centax

May 30, 2025

• 2 min. read

Case Details: BKP Media Vision Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 30 Centax 317 (All.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Kshitij Shailendra, J.
S/Shri Anurag Khanna, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Pandey, Gaurav Sarin, Brijesh Verma & Ms Radhika Bansal for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, Saumitra Singh & Ankur Agarwal, (S.C.) for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was granted a 99-year lease of industrial land by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). Upon receiving due permission from NOIDA, the petitioner transferred all his leasehold rights in the said land to a third party and paid the requisite stamp duty based on the declared sale consideration. Subsequently, the jurisdictional officer under CGST and Uttar Pradesh GST Act initiated proceedings under Section 74, alleging suppression of facts and non-payment of GST on the transfer transaction. The petitioner contended that the said transfer did not constitute a ‘supply’ within the meaning of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST and Uttar Pradesh GST Act.

In support, the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India [2025] GUJHC 1117 (DB), which held that such transactions involving assignment of leasehold rights do not amount to supply. The petitioner also referred to a similar matter entertained by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, wherein interim relief had been granted. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the legal issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry (supra), which had categorically concluded that transfer of leasehold rights in land by the lessee to a third party after the lease is executed does not fall within the scope of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST.

The Court noted that the reliance placed by the jurisdictional officer under CGST on Builders Association of Navi Mumbai v. Union of India 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 232 (Bom.) was misplaced, as that decision pertained to an initial lease deed executed by a governmental authority, not to subsequent transfers of leasehold interest. Observing that the petitioner’s case merited judicial consideration, the Court issued notice to the respondents.