Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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