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
 
Reduction in GST rates for Realty Sector - missing the basic math

 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019

By S Sivakumar, LL.B., FCA, FCS, ACSI, Advocate, K Vidhyashree, B Com., LLB., Advocate & R Vaidyanathan, M.Com., M.Phil., GST Practitioner

THE GST Council, in its 33 rd Meeting held on 24 th February, 2019 has recommended that the GST rate for non-affordable housing would be reduced to 5% without ITC, while the GST rate for affordable housing would be reduced to 1%, with effect from April 1, 2019. In the press release issued on February 24, 2019, the Government has justified this proposed reduction in the GST rates as a boost for the residential realty sector.

Be that as it may... it would seem that this proposal is bound to drastically affect the residential realty sector.

The Input Tax Credit ('ITC') that is borne by the Developer would easily work out to about 9 to 10%of the selling price. The main reason for this rather high ITC is mainly due to cement being taxed at a GST rate of 28%. Elevators and certain other costly items also get charged at 18% GST, apart from services being charged at the GST rate of 18%. At the existing GST rate of 12% (on the construction value + land value), the Developer would be able to completely recoup his ITC. Since the Developer is allowed to avail of ITC on most inward supplies [except for certain small-time restrictions contained in Section 17(5)], the Developer is only too happy to see that his ITC is fully covered by the output GST charged to his flat buyer, under the current regime. When the output GST rate for the non-affordable residential segment is reduced to 5% without ITC, it would mean that the Developer would lose the entirely ITC, resulting in an incremental loss of margin to the tune of about 5 to 6%.

The question that would arise is whether the Developer would be entitled to increase his basic prices by5% to 6% to cover himself for the loss of ITC? Is there anything in the GST law that would prevent the Developer to cover himself for the loss that he would suffer, on account of loss of ITC. My view, by way of a reiteration, is that, the Developer would indeed be entitled to increase his basic price to cover himself for the loss of ITC, as anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 are inapplicable here. Of course, if the Developer is indeed allowed to increase his basic price, one would wonder as to the very purpose of the proposed reduction in the GST rate.

Taking this discussion forward......whether the proposed reduction in the GST rate would be applied even for running contracts, wherein, the Developer has already charged and collected GST @ 12% for the period prior to April 1, 2019? In my strong view, if the Government prescribes that the rate reduction should also apply to running contracts as of April 1, 2019, we are sure to have chaos all around. Issues related to ITC including its reversal, etc. are bound to create major issues. Hence, one does hope that the Government implements the new scheme only for contracts to be signed on or after April 1, 2019.

Another issue that would be relevant is whether, it would be compulsory for Developers to implement the new scheme with effect from April 1,2019? In my view, the Government should offer the new scheme as an alternative to the existing scheme of charging GST @ 12% after claiming ITC. Making it compulsory for Developers to implement the scheme could face constitutional challenges, for sure, as this would go against the concept of seamless credit which is at the heart of the GST regime.

Another issue is whether, the Developer would be free to choose the new scheme of lower GST rates without ITC for some projects and the regular scheme of higher GST rates with ITC for some other projects? In my view, the Government should ensure that the Developer is given the freedom to choose the scheme that he finds appropriate.

Yet another issue that would bother Developers is the unutilized ITC carried by them including the transitional credit. Many Developers have huge ITC balances that have been carried forward from the erstwhile service tax and VAT regimes. If they are forced to shift to the new scheme, they will have no means to adjust the unutilized ITC balances, leading to huge losses.

We will, of course, have to wait for the relevant Notification to be issued by the Central Government in this regard and one fervently hopes that the issues discussed in this article are duly considered.

It is good to see that the Government is proposing not to charge GST on transfer of development rights, at the hands of the Landowners/transferors. Of course, given the fact that the Developer is entitled to avail of ITC of the GST paid by the Landowners, etc., this proposal is unlikely to reduce the costs at the hands of the Developer. Of course, in my strong view, development rights are equivalent to 'land' and consequently, Notification No. 4/2018-CT (Rate) dated 25 th January 2019 would tantamount to levying GST on land and is consequently, bound to struck down by the Courts.

Before concluding....

Seamless flow of credit is at the core of the GST scheme. One is surprised to see the Government push for a GST regime for the all-important Realty Sector, without ITC. It would be better if the Government comes out with a scheme of a reduced GST rate of say, 9% with ITC. Pushing for a GST regime without ITC would mean robbing Paul to pay Peter. Moreover, implementing a scheme for Residential Realty Sector without ITC would be a major deviation from the basic principles of the GST regime, which ideally, should be taken by the new Government after the 2019 general elections. A Government, going into elections, is completely unjust in trying to push a half baked scheme, especially concerning the Realty Sector which employs the largest manpower after agriculture.

One is rather amused to see the Government justifying the proposed reduction in the GST rate as a measure to boost the real estate sector. If the Developers could have afforded it, they could themselves have reduced their basic prices to push up the demand. The Government, by trying to push this scheme down the Developers' throats, is creating more issues for the sector, without any justification.

Currently, Developers who are works contractors, are allowed to classify their output supplies under SAC Sl No. 9954(ii), in terms of which, the actual value of land is allowed to be claimed by them as exemption. It would remain to be seen as to how Developers, who are works contractors, are treated under the proposed regime.

It is understood that many Developers have already started receiving calls from their flat buyers not to bill them till March 31, 2019. While I am not sure as to whether the proposed reduced GST rate would indeed push up demand, it would certainly result in most Developers see significant reduced cash flows till March 31, 2019.

This article is more relevant for the affordable realty segment, given the fact that the proposed reduction in GST is steeper.

The Government/GST Council, for reasons best known, has not addressed issues concerning denial of ITC in terms of Section 17(5)of the GST Act to the commercial realty sector. Neither has it addressed issues concerning refund/adjustment of GST to Developers, on cancellation of flats by the flat buyers. Had we seen some development in this regard, one would not have attributed the present proposal as a pure pre-election gimmick!

(The views expressed are strictly personal.)

(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)

 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Reduction in GST rates for Realty Sector - missing the basic math

The article by learned authors is totally one-sided in favour of developers . They seem to have not realized that government has been forced to take this action because of certain unscrupulous developers ( in fact a majority of the developers) who lined their own pockets without passing on the ITC benefits to the hapless buyers of flats. They have earned themselves a very bad name by indulging in unfair practices.. Same thing had happened in the case of restaurants Now they are also suffering because of their over-smartness.
In my view, government should ensure that these developers are not allowed to raise prices . If necessary , anti-profiteering law may be amended with retrospective effect. Consultants should refrain from helping crooks

Posted by v gupta
 
Sub: rate reduction for realty

chaos is the reality in realty now.
builders are developing fear and terror in their minds regarding cash flows.
govt is sharing revenue with complexities and anomalies and ambiguities.they are all jointly developing the difficulties for this employment generating sector. seamless credit is proving to be a exempted concept now in gst.jetly bhai and namoh ji kuch to sochiye aur ais a kariye ki market men paisa aaye. jo taxable hi nahi usko exempted karke kis par ehsaan jata rahe hum.

Posted by Navin Khandelwal
 

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.