News Update

Cus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCCX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaGST - Conclusion that taxable person is providing a service to supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law: HCIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US officialI-T- As per Section 119(2)(b), power to condone applications relate to claims for amount exceeding Rs 50 lakhs are to be considered by CBDT; however it is impermissible for CBDT to pass order on merits: HC8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 for unexplained income & u/s 69 for unexplained expenditure not tenable where complete transactional details are furnished & not doubted: HCRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthI-T- Delay in filing ITR is per se insufficient reason to estimate assessee's profit @15% on turnover, more so where audited financial report is filed in timely manner: ITATMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- For invoking section 69A, assessee should be found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article & which is not recorded in the books of account: ITATGovt proposes Guidelines for ethical approach to Coal MiningI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024I-T- Lending money with the primary intention of earning interest can be considered a business activity, but nature and manner of lending, as well as the frequency, should be taken into account: ITAT
 
Realty players - confusion continues 'unabated' in GST

JULY 21, 2017

By S Sivakumar,LL.B., FCA, FCS, ACSI, MBA, Advocate

IT seems that the confusion created under the GST law, in respect of the tax rates applicable to the Realty Developers especially, in major cities like Mumbai where the land prices are significantly high, continues to haunt the sector.

As we know, realty developers in Maharasthra (as well in many other states) were allowed the benefit under a composition scheme under the then prevailing MVAT Act, in terms of which, they were allowed to pay VAT @ 1% on the total value of the apartment including the value of the undivided portion of the land. Most of these developers had also opted to pay service tax under the then prevailing Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20-6-2012, in terms of which, service tax was paid on 30% of the total value inclusive of the land value. In effect, the total of VAT and service tax worked out to 5.5% on the total value including land, in the pre-GST era.

Under the GST law, we find the following two entries in terms of the notifications viz.

Construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly (the value of land is deemed to be one-third of the total amount charged for such supplies) [Sl No. 9954(i)]

12% with no refund of accumulated ITC

Composite supply of Works contract as defined in clause 119 of section 2 of CGST Act (Sl.No. 9954(ii)]

18%

One would recall that, in terms of the recommendations of the GST Council, prior to the issuance of the notifications, the following two entries were found, viz.

Sl.No.19

Construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly. [The value of land is included in the amount charged from the service recipient]

12% With Full ITC but no refund of overflow of ITC

Sl.No. 27

Composite supply of Works contract as defined in clause 119 of section 2 of CGST Act

18% With Full ITC

The TIOL readers would note that there the reference to 'full ITC' is conspicuously absent in the notifications issued under the GST law, indicating that the provisions contained in Section 17(5)(c) of the GST Act could result in denial of credit of the tax paid by the Developers who are classifying their output activities under Sl No. 9954(i), as these players cannot be construed as executing works contracts within the meaning of Section 2(119) of the GST Act.

Be that as it may……. one huge dilemma that Realty Developers operating in major metros like Mumbai could face, would be the very high level of land prices. I am given to understand the land prices in these metros could work out to as high as, 50% to 70% of the total apartment value. Taking a conservative example of land cost being 50% of the total value of the apartment, the tax rate that the Developer operating in a major metro would need to charge to his flat buyer, if he classifies his outward supply under Sl No. 9954(i) would work out to 12.06% of the total value of the apartment inclusive of land, as he would be entitled to a standard deduction of 33% of the total value towards land (irrespective of the actual value of the land). On the other hand, if the Developer classifies his outward supply as one of works contract under Sl No. 9954(ii), he would be allowed to apply an effective GST rate of only 9% in our example (18% tax rate applicable on the construction value being 50% of the total value of the apartment inclusive of land).Thus, the effective GST rate calculated as a percentage on the total value of the apartment inclusive of land, would work out to 12.06% if the Developer classifies his outward supply under Sl No. 9954(i) or 9% if the Developer classifies his outward supply under Sl No. 9954(ii). Of course, the tax differential would be much higher, if the land value is to be higher, say 60% or 70% of the total value of the apartment.

Given the huge difference in the overall GST rates, the question that would arise iswhether, the Developer is allowed the option of classifying his outward supply under either of the two chapter headings, viz. 9954(i) or 9954(ii). In my humble view, if the Developer is directly engaged in the construction activity even to a very small extent and is therefore to be treated as a works contractor within the meaning of Section 2(119), he would have to necessarily classify his outward supply under Sl No. 9954(ii), while the activity covered by Sl No. 9954(i) is restricted to pure Developers who have entirely contracted out the construction activity (and are consequently not treated as works contractors under the GST law). The very fact that the Developer was paying tax under the then prevailing state VAT law would go to indicate that he is to be treated as a works contractor under the GST law, irrespective of the fact that such Developer might have been paying tax @ 1% of the total value of the apartment inclusive of the land value under the composition scheme.

In my view, even the manner in which the agreements are entered into by the Developer would not be a reason to determine the head under which the Developer is required to classify his outward supply. I understand that, in places like Mumbai, the Developer typically enters into a single contract wherein, a single consideration is agreed to for construction and sale of the apartment without the land value being shown separately. Even in these cases, there is nothing in the law to prevent the Developer to enter into an addendum/codicil agreement with his prospective flat buyer wherein, the value for the undivided portion of the land can be specifically agreed to, consequent to which, the Developer (being a works contractor) cannot be denied the benefit of charging the lower overall tax rate under Sl No. 9954(ii).

Even as a matter of planning, there is nothing in law to prevent for a pure Developer (who has contracted out the entire construction activity to a contractor) to convert himself into a works contractor by directly handling a very small portion of the construction activity and deriving the benefit of the lower overall tax rate under Sl No. 9954(ii), given the benefit of significantly lower tax rates (especially in major metros like Mumbai).

Before concluding…..

Very unfortunately, the confusion regarding the classification of the outward supplies/services by the Realty players and the consequent changes in the tax rates, which has been existing right from 2005, is continuing well into the GST regime.

Can the benefit of classification under Sl No. 9954(ii) be denied to Developers (who are to be treated as works contractors) who have entered into single agreements (specifying a single price for the sale of the apartment without specifying the break up between the land value and the construction value) in places like Mumbai? My view is a clear NO. It is always open to these Developers to either amend their existing agreements or enter into addendum agreements to provide for the bifurcation between the value of undivided portion of land and that for construction and take the benefit of the lower tax rate that is available to works contractors under Sl No. 9954(ii).

 

GST Rollout - One Week After | simply inTAXicating

GST Rollout - Are We Ready? - Episode 2 (Concluded)

GST Roll-Out - Are we ready? - Episode 1

GST Rollout | Episode 2 | simply inTAXicating

GST Rollout | simply inTAXicating

Also See : TIOL TUBE Videos on GST

 

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)

POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.