Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON LEVY OF GST ON SALE OF DEVELOPED PLOTS 71/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON LEVY OF GST ON SALE OF DEVELOPED PLOTS 71/2020-21
The levy of GST on development charges is a matter of dispute as sale of land per se is out of the ambit of GST law. When the sale of land is not liable to GST, then how can the development of land be chargeable to GST but the logic does not come to the rescue of the assessees. In the present update, we seek to discuss the decision pronounced by the Gujarat AAR in the case of M/s Satyaja Infratech wherein it was affirmed that the activity of purchase of land and selling the land by converting into residential plots with basic facility is liable to GST attracting 18% under serial no. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
 
In this decision, the AAR without discussing as to the implication of the entry no. 5 of the Schedule III to CGST Act, 2017, produced below, has ruled that GST is applicable on the sale of developed plots. The entry no. 5 of Schedule III reads as follows:-
5. Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building.
The paragraph 5(b) of Schedule II reads as follows:-
(b) construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration has been received after issuance of completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever is earlier.
 
The exception carved out in Schedule III is with respect to construction of complex, building, civil structure etc. and is not respect with developing of basic amenities on plot. Moreover, there is no completion certificate issued in case of plots and so the reference to paragraph 5(b) of Schedule II for levying tax on development of plots is totally fallacious. Therefore, in our opinion, the decision rendered by AAR is adhoc, without having legal backing of provisions of GST Law.
 
In our opinion, when a person develops land belonging to own and sells developed plots, the transaction is purely sale of land which is outside the ambit of GST. It is also relevant to note that stamp duty is paid on value of plot including development cost and so the transaction is purely that of sale of land. It is pertinent to mention here that the issue regarding levy of GST on transfer of development rights in case of Joint Development Agreements is being challenged before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by real estate developers and the matter is sub-judice and awaited for final verdict. Accordingly, when the levy of GST on development rights itself is challenged, no GST should be leviable on development charges included in the sale of developed, particularly when the land is owned by person developing the land. In case of development of land by owner himself, no service is provided to third party so as to levy GST and the cost of development included in the cost of plot is sale of land which is not liable to GST.
 
Another dispute regarding this transaction is treatment of the said supply as composite or mixed supply. This is for the reason that the transaction involves supply of developed plot and the supply of development service. If the transaction is considered as composite supply, then the principal supply would become relevant, which in this case would be supply of plot and consequently no GST would be payable on the transaction. However, one may say that the transaction cannot be considered as composite supply because it consists of two or more taxable supplies but in the present case, supply of plot is covered under Schedule III, and is neither supply of goods nor supply of services. Sale of land is not taxable but GST is chargeable on development charges. On the other hand, if is considered that the transaction is mixed supply, then in that case, GST at the rate of 18% would be applicable on the entire consideration, including consideration for sale of plot which is not proper.
 
It is also pertinent to mention here that value of exempt supply includes sale of land as per Section 17(3) of CGST Act. Therefore, the developer would also be required to comply with the provisions of credit reversal if GST is paid on development charges and input tax credit is availed.  
 
As we can foresee numerous points of dispute in the issue of taxability of sale of developed plots, a suitable clarification should be issued by the government as the recent advance ruling seeks to raise confusion as regards levy of GST on sale of developed plots by the owner himself.   
 
This is solely for educational purpose. 
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com