Applicability of GST on partially completed flats having identified customers before/after GST regime or where no customers are identified – AAR Ruling
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3116 (2019) (08) AAR
The Applicant was a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and is registered under the Goods and Services Act, 2017.
The Applicant was engaged in construction and sale of residential apartments and residential complexes under joint development agreements.
The Applicant had executed projects under JDA with Land Owners for .an agreed ratio of built-up area. Construction was commenced during pre-GST regime and continued under GST regime. Substantial portion of the work had. been sub contracted to another registered person.
The applicant had sought advance ruling in respect applicability of GST on partially completed flats i.e.
(a) Partially completed flats having identified customers before GST regime
(b) Partially completed flats where customers are identified after implementation of GST regime, and
(c) Partially completed flats, where no customers are identified.
The Applicant had the following views on the question raised:
Liable to Tax as per earlier law on the value of work executed under earlier law and liable to tax under GST Law only on the ·value of work executed under GST.
Not liable to tax under earlier law on the portion of work executed under earlier la.w, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in L&T case that the activity / transaction amounts to work contract only from the stage of entering agreement with customer, and attract tax under GST Law on the value of work executed under GST Law.
Not liable to tax under earlier law on the portion of work executed under earlier law, as held by Hon’ble Supreme. Court in L&T.case that the activity /transaction amount.s to works contract only from the stage· of entering agreement with customer, and attract tax under GST law on the value of work executed under GST Law only from the stage of entering agreement with customer.
The Advance Ruling Authority gave the following rulings:
(a) ln respect of Partially completed flats having identified customers before GST regime, the Applicant is liable to pay service tax under the F’inance Act 1994 proportionate to the services provided up to 30.06.2017 and from 01.07.2017 onwards liable to pay GST proportionate to the service provided effective from 01.07.2.017 in terms of Section 142(11)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.
(b) In respect of partially completed flats, where customers are identified after implementation of GST, the Applicant is liable to pay GST on the transaction value of supply.
(c) In respect of partially completed flats where no customers are identified the applicant is not liable to GST as no supply is involved. However, if the supply is made prior to the issuance of completion certificate then GST is liable to be paid on the transaction value of supply, as in (b) above.
addition u/s 68 ca misconduct cash deposit in bank cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty covid-19 custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq gstn advisory gstr-1 GSTR-3B GST rates IBBI ibc icai announcement itat mca circular MCA notification order u/s 119 penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 Search & Seizure sebi circular sebi regulations transfer and postings unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes
There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand …
Engagement of Company Secretaries (CS) as Young Professionals in the Office of Regional Director (WR), Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and…
Applicability of provisions of Section 115BBE read with Section 69, 69A and 69C in a case arising before Settlement Commission…
Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…
Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…
Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…