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 TREATMENT OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS - PART II

GST UPDATE ON TREATMENT OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS - PART II


In the previous update we canvassed the taxability of joint development agreements under GST Regime. Through this update we would like to enumerate the provisions concerning the time of supply and the valuation of service in respect to the joint development agreements.
It is pertinent to mention that there is no express provision as regards joint development agreements. Consequently, the time of supply will be ascertained on the basis of most appropriate clause. As per section 12(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the time of supply of goods shall be the earlier of the following:-
• Date of issue of invoice by the supplier or the last date on which he is required to issue of invoice for supply, or
• Date on which the supplier receives payment with respect to the supply.
As no invoice is issued by the developer to the land owner, and it is also obvious that the development rights are transferred to the developer before the developer starts construction, it can be inferred that the consideration is received by the developer in kind even before commencement of construction. Consequently, one may opine that developer is required to pay GST on the flats agreed to be given to the land owner even prior to commencement of construction which will prove to be a great hardship for the developers.
Now, comes the valuation aspect, which is given under section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 27 to 35 of CGST Rules, 2017. It is pertinent to mention that there is no explicit provision as regards the valuation of flats given to land owner under joint development agreement. Consequently, the most appropriate Rule is to be applied. Rule 27 of the CGST Rules, 2017 states that where the value of supply of goods or services is for a consideration not wholly in money, the value of supply shall be the open market value of such supply. If the open market value is not available, it will be determined as total consideration received in money or its equivalent. If value cannot be determined by this formulae, it will be the value of supply of like goods/services.
As per the above provisions, the value of flats given to land owner shall be open market value being the value of flats on the date of transfer of joint development rights. Say for example, on the date of transfer of joint development rights, developer sold 10 flats at the rate of Rs. 30,00,000/- then the value of flats to be given to the land owner will be valued at Rs. 30,00,000/-.
However, if the open market value is not available, the value of flats shall be the value of flats of like kind and quality at about the same time. Say for example, the value of flat in the region of the same specification is 32,00,000/- then the value of flats given to land owner will be valued at Rs. 32,00,000/-.
If we compare the provisions of valuation of the flats given to the land owner under joint development agreements in the service tax laws, it is found that the provision is similar to the present regime. Under Service Tax Laws, as per circular no. 151/2/2012-ST dated 10.02.2017, the valuation of flats given to land owner shall be equal to the value of similar flats charged by the developer from prospective buyers of flats and this concept is similar to the concept of open market value. Furthermore, CBEC Instruction No. 354/311/2015-TRU dated 20.01.2016 states that for valuation of flats given to land owner, clarification of education guide that valuation shall be the value of land on date of transfer to the developer is not proper. The instruction states that for the purpose of valuation of flats given to land owner, provisions of Circular No. 151/2/2012-ST dated 10.02.2017 would prevail. Hence, under the GST regime, similar provision is continued with the exception that the time of supply arrives at the date of transfer of development rights to the developer by the land owner. This will be great hardship to the developer as entire GST would be payable in the beginning as against payment of tax on periodical basis.
Further, the builder is liable to pay GST on the owner's share of the flats/houses/portion of the building constructed by the builder/developer and given to the land owner as per the development agreement. The issue to be dealt here is what shall be the taxable value. As per decisions taken in 14th Meeting of the GST Council held on May 18-19, 2017 in Srinagar, J&K; 18 sectoral groups have been constituted representing various sectors of the economy in order to ensure smooth roll-out of GST. One such sectoral group is "MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT SECTORAL GROUP" which has issued some FAQs on GST in respect of Construction of Residential Complex by Builders/Developers. In these FAQs, following clarification has been given in respect of land owner's share of the flats/houses through FAQs:-
GST is liable to be paid by the builder/developer on the share of the land owner, also. GST is liable to be paid when the possession or right in the property of the said flats are transferred to the land owner by entering into a 'conveyance deed' or similar instrument (e.g. allotment letter).
The value of the flats/portion of the building‟ supplied to the land owner by the developer/builder has to be determined under the provisions of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rules governing Valuation as envisaged under Rules 27 to 35 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
In terms of Rule 27 of CGST Rules, 2017, where the supply of goods or services is for a consideration not wholly in money, the value of the supply shall:
(a) be the open market value of such supply;
(b) if the open market value is not available under clause (a), be the sum total of consideration in money and any such further amount in money as is equivalent to the consideration not in money, if such amount is known at the time of supply;
(c) if the value of supply is not determinable under clause (a) or clause (b), be the value of supply of goods or services or both of like kind and quality;
In view of the above provisions, the value of supply of those flats would be equal to the value of similar flats charged by the builder/developer from the buyers of his share of flats. In case the prices of flats/houses undergo a change over the period of sale (from the first sale of flat/house in the residential complex to the last sale of the flat/house), the value of similar flats as are sold nearer to the date on which land is being made available for construction should be used for arriving at the value for the purpose of tax."
Therefore, the above clarification given by the media and entertainment sectoral group are of great help in determining the taxability of flats sold to land owner. Though these FAQs don't have any legal binding, yet since there is no clarification on these points, these FAQs will act as guiding factor to the assessees.

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

The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.

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