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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more