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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more