Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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