ITC admissibility - Place of Business unregistered on Portal

Practically officers would create the demand on the ground that Goods/services have not been received by the taxpayer payer as the address so not updated on the portal.

However,  legally, this contention is not tenable. Non-updation of registration particulars is a separate offence having it's separate Penalty provisions.

It has no direct nexus with ITC eligibility u/s. 16. 

16(2) also talks about receipt of goods/services by the registered person. It doesn't brings out (either expressly or implied) the condition that the address has to be on the tax invoice.

Practically junior officer might dispute (due to their revenue bias). At higher forums this is valid defense. 

🔍 Query Recap:

Can ITC be denied solely because the address on the invoice is not a registered place of business as per the GST portal?

📘 Legal Position:

✅ Relevant Legal Provisions:

1. Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017:
   • ITC can be availed if:
     • The recipient is in possession of a tax invoice.
     • Goods/services have been received.
     • Tax has been paid to the government.
     • Return has been furnished.

Nowhere does Section 16(2) mandate that the address mentioned on the invoice must match the address registered on the GST portal.

2. Rule 46 of CGST Rules – Tax Invoice Content:
   • Only requires “Name, address and GSTIN” of the recipient to be mentioned.
   • It does not specify that the address must be a registered place of business.

🛡️ Interpretation and Legal Defense:

• As per settled legal principles, substantive conditions (receipt of goods, payment of tax, invoice possession) are crucial.
• Mismatch in address or non-mention of a registered place does not affect the substantive right to claim ITC.
• The issue of non-updation of address is a procedural lapse and is covered under separate penal provisions (e.g., Sec 122 for incorrect particulars in registration), but does not invalidate ITC.

🧾 Judicial Precedents (Indicative):

Though specific GST-era judgments may be limited, courts and tribunals (under VAT/CENVAT regimes and early GST) have emphasized substance over form. A few arguments rooted in jurisprudence:

• ITC cannot be denied for procedural lapses if the receipt and use of goods/services are established.
• The doctrine of proportionality applies: denial of ITC is a harsh consequence for a procedural lapse.

⚖️ Practical Challenges:

• Yes, field officers may raise objections — especially junior-level officers — due to a revenue-focused approach.
• However, at higher appellate levels, your argument has strong legal grounding.

📝 Best Practices / Suggestions:

1. Maintain sufficient documentary evidence (delivery challans, e-way bills, payment records, internal registers, etc.) to prove actual receipt and use at your place of business.
2. If a location is frequently used but not registered, consider updating your GST registration to include it as an additional place of business to pre-empt litigation.
3. You can file a written submission citing that:
   • There is no legal requirement for the address on the invoice to match registered place.
   • ITC eligibility is based on actual receipt and use, not address formality.
   • Non-Updation is a separate offence.

✅ Conclusion:

ITC is not inadmissible merely because the address on the invoice is not a registered address, provided that:

• Goods/services are actually received.
• Other conditions under Section 16(2) are satisfied.

You are correct: non-updation is a separate procedural lapse, and should not affect ITC eligibility. Your defense is legally tenable, and should succeed at appellate levels if supported by evidence.

ITC is certainly available subject to the satisfaction of unpleasant questions that might be raised by the AO. However there is more risk if the PO visits undeclared premises for inspection.

Can registered person can take ITC of the invoices on which unregistered address (ie address not registered on portal) is mentioned??    NO. 

In Nutshell, is ITC inadmissible if the address on the invoice is not registered ? Inadmissible.

Rule 46 only says Address to be mentioned. It is silent on whether registered or unregistered.

The querist has   misread Rule 46. How ? No need to explain. The querist knows pros. & cons. very well.

Credit should be eligible as long as conditions of availing credit are fulfilled. The section 16(1) requires that the ITC be availed by registered person only. Does not mention that goods/services to be received at registered premises.

Additionally there is another circular which makes it clear that it is not necessary that the goods have to be received at the registered premises for credit to be eligible.

Relevant ----> Circular No. 241/35/2024-GST

3.1 From a plain reading of the clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 16 of the CGST Act, it is quite apparent that there is no reference of any particular place where goods are required to be “received” by the registered person. This is in contrast to the erstwhile Central Excise regime, where the provisions contemplated physical receipt of the goods at the factory of the manufacturer for taking CENVAT credit on the said goods. In most of the State VAT Acts, the provisions related to credit of the input tax did not have any explicit mention of physical receipt of goods at any particular place and input tax credit was allowed on purchase of goods.