Skip to main content

Builders can't pass on VAT to flat buyers: Supreme Court

Apex court verdict upholding Bombay high court ruling is a jolt to developers in the state.


This is good news for those who have bought property between June 2006 and March 2010. The Supreme Court on Thursday said Value Added Tax (VAT) cannot be imposed on buyers.

This has come as a jolt to builders in the state who wanted 1% tax instead of 5% imposed by the state government in 2006. They were recovering the VAT amount from buyers.

Justice RM Lodha upheld the Bombay high court order that VAT cannot be imposed on buyers.

“The value of goods which can constitute the amount to be taxed has to be the value of the goods at the time of incorporation of goods in the works even though property in goods pass later. Taxing the sale of goods element in a works contract is permissible even after incorporation of goods provided tax is directed to the value of goods at the time of incorporation and does not purport to tax the transfer of immovable property,” the court observed.

The court also directed the Maharashtra government to bring clarity in Rule 58 (1-A) — relating to VAT rules.

“We respect the Supreme Court verdict but we will study the judgment only after we get a copy. The taxes imposed by the government have always been passed on to the buyer. We will not pay from our pocket,” said Sunil Mantri, vice president Naredco, CMD Mantri Realty.

“Imposing 5% VAT under section 42(3) of MVAT on flat purchased during June 20, 2006, to March 2010 would impact consumers. The SC verdict will lead to disputes between developers and buyers,” he added.

Builders’ association CREDAI had approached the apex court after the Bombay high court rejected their plea to impose only 1% VAT. In 2006, the state government imposed a VAT of 5% on constructions made between 2006 and 2010. The move resulted in an additional tax liability on flats, shops and bungalows sold by developers between June 20, 2006, and March 31, 2010.

“Whatever VAT amount the developer has recovered, will now have to be returned to buyers with interest,” said a consumer activist. “If they don’t, then we will move court.”

Advocate general’s stand

The apex court recorded the statement of advocate general of Maharashtra that clearly stated that implementation of Rule 58(1-A) shall not result in double taxation and in any case all claims of alleged double taxation will be determined in the process of assessment of each individual case

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1894455/report-builders-can-t-pass-on-vat-to-flat-buyers-supreme-court

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more