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
 
34th GST Council decisions on Realty Sector - some initial reactions

 

MARCH 20, 2019

By S Sivakumar, LL.B., FCA, FCS, ACSI (London)

THE GST council, in its 34th meeting held on March 19, 2019 has come out with many interesting conclusions, vis-à-vis the proposed scheme for the Realty Sector that is coming into effect from April 1, 2019. In terms of the press release issued on March 19, 2019, the Developer will have the option to continue to follow the existing scheme wherein, he is allowed to avail of Input Tax Credit, in respect of running projects.

Writing in TIOL, I had expressed the difficulties that Developers would face, if they are forced to shift to the new scheme, in respect of existing projects, as they would be forced to bear the loss of input tax credit without being able to increase the base prices. It does seem that some good sense has prevailed on our babus in the North Block. The option to continue with the existing scheme, should therefore, come as a huge relief for Developers.

It is common for large Developers to go in for projects involving multiple residential towers wherein Completion Certificates are taken for each of these towers. It would be good if the Government clarifies as to whether the option to continue under the existing scheme would be available for the project as a whole. From a practical perspective, it would be good if Developers are allowed to follow the existing scheme for the whole project.

The Press Release, in para 2, states that t he promoters shall be given a one-time option to continue to pay tax at the old rates (effective rate of 8% or 12% with ITC) on ongoing (buildings where construction and actual booking have both started before 01.04.2019) which have not been completed by 31.03.2019. It would seem that, even if a single agreement has been signed towards the booking of the flats, the option to continue with the existing scheme would be available to Developers. Further, it seems that the option to continue with the existing scheme will have to exercised by the Developer, for all of his projects, in the State and that, a project wise option may not be permitted. It would be better to have a clarification from the Board, in the notification that they are planning to issue.

From the Developers' perspective, it would seem that they would be happy to opt to follow the existing scheme, for existing/running projects, as of March 31, 2019.

A reading of Para 4 of the press release, seems to suggest that the new scheme of 5% without ITC (for non - affordable housing) would be mandatory for all new projects and for existing projects at the option of the Developer. I would take the view that the new scheme of lower GST rates without ITC can only be an alternative as any scheme which disallows ITC would require the amendment of the CGST Act. Thus, in my view, the Developers would still be allowed to choose between the new scheme and the existing scheme, even for new projects.

Be that as it may… will the Developer be allowed to increase his base prices to offset the loss arising out of the denial of ITC, under the new scheme. In my view, despite some statements from the Finance Ministry officials that Developers would not be allowed to increase the base prices, there is nothing in the GST law that can force the Developers not to increase the base prices. In my further view, Section 171 of the CGST Act dealing with anti-profiteering would not apply in these cases.

The other development is that of shifting the liability to pay GST on the transfer of TDRs/FSI and long - term lease (premium) from the land owner to the builder, under the reverse charge mechanism (para 7.2 of the press release). This is a highly retrograde step which would severely affect Developers. My legal view continues to be that, development rights including TDRs are to be considered as 'land' and cannot be subjected to the levy of GST at all. It would have been good if the Government had accepted this legal view and exempted the levy of GST on TDRs, premium on long term lease of land, etc. By shifting the responsibility to the Developer/Builder, to pay GST on these transactions under GST, the Government has only complicated the matter further. The clarification given in Para 7.3 that the date on which builder shall be liable to pay tax on TDR, FSI, long term lease (premium) of land under RCM in respect of flats sold after completion certificate is being shifted to date of issue of completion certificate, is of course, welcome.

Another important aspect clarified by the Council is to treat projects with upto 15% commercial space as residential property, in terms of Para 6.3 of the press release. This is a welcome step and will help residential projects having commercial amenities such as clubs, restaurants etc. i.e, the residential-cum-commercial projects. However, in many cases, the decision to earmark the portion for commercial purposes such as clubs, etc. is taken at a much later stage and to this extent, this benefit would involve practical challenges for the Developer of residential-cum-commercial projects.

The stipulation that Developers who procures more than 80% of the total value of inputs and input services from un-registered suppliers would be required to pay GST @ 18% (28% for purchase of cement) is highly retrograde and also impractical. Small and medium sized Developers, especially those who are operating in smaller cities and towns, would find it very difficult to meet the 80% criterion and would also find it very difficult to implement this rule. One wonders as to the stage, at which, this 80% criterion would have to be implemented by the Developer? It would be good if the Government scraps this unnecessary and impractical condition.

On the whole, the decision of the GST council to allow Developers and Builders to continue the existing scheme, for running projects, should come as a big relief.

One expects that the Notifications/Circulars/Guidance Note to be issued by the Board will cover the issues discussed in this article.

(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)

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.