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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more