B/F (to UPDATE) >
TOP- up
RERA - Ongoing Projects >
https://taxguru.in/service-tax/opening-jugglery-work-contract-service-tax.html
< ca.sanjeevkumar@hotmail.com. Phone : 0124-4271552.)
......
https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/taxation-builder-developer-rajasthan-part-1.html
< https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1737087063034239
https://taxguru.in/goods-and.../vat-booking-flats-construction-big-question-mark.html
< within POSTS (selected):
August 29, 2012
August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012
<<<<
In SK Bansal's case, the following propositions were not specifically or adequately addressed; hence not gone into, and decided by court:
A) The implications of the spl. state law are of every relevance ; so much so, require to be considered and kept in focus for deciding why the property (i.e.Flat or Apartment) is, -
- an immovable property;
- indivisible composite property;
- the agreement for 'sale' is a composite contract, likewise indivisible and inseparable in all respects; and
- ascertainment of separate value of each of the three components of sale, including land, is a must; and, as no fool- and safe-proof machinery has been prescribed for the purpose, 'works contract' has to treated as a composite and indivisible contract. In other words, the attempted levy is a non-starter , hence must fail.
- Further, provision of any such machinery, if critically viewed and analyzed, is most likely to prove well-nigh an impossible task.
And, the same proposition as in B) holds good, also for land, being one of the three components of the sale.
Now, almost after 6 yrs from, - the roller coaster wheels have taken a full round- but to be back only in the proverbial Sq. I - launching Pad !
KEY Note:What is abominably sad and deeply regrettable is that , however, the mostly gullible have remained to be awakened from feigned sleep; as said- even a man fast asleep, or in the midst of a mid-summer night dream or a state of coma, could be woken up, but never one feigning asleep ?!
In continuation /apropos of , -
Excerpts (as random selected)
>Input Tax Credit is NOT available *
Revised Model GST Law mentions that input tax credit is not available for-- works contracts services when supplied for construction of immovable property, other than plant and machinery, except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service
- goods or services received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property on his own account, other than plant and machinery, even when used in course or furtherance of business.
For example, any contractor/builder will not enjoy any input tax credit on the input services if he constructs any building. But he will enjoy input tax credit on input service for further supply of works contract service. These two sentences are confusing and contradictory.
Input tax credit is available to both a builder and a taxable person while constructing plant and machinery. But input tax credit is not available to any taxable person who constructs on his own account even if it is for business use.
In case no abatement/ composition is provided, it may lead to significant increase in tax burden, especially if such works contract is taxed at Standard GST rate (which is 18%) and even if subjected to lower tax rate (12%).>
* Now available - See Update >
https://housing.com/news/gst-real-estate-will-impact-home-buyers-industry/
CROSS Refer (Blogs) @
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.com/2018/06/rera-nd-gst-contd-supplent.html
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.com/2018/06/rera-phase-wise-completion.html
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.com/2018/04/gst-india.html
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.com/2018/03/sale-of-immovable-property-or-deemed.html
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.com/2017/09/rera-gst-el-al-ref-links.html
http://swaminathanv208.blogspot.com/2016/07/deeming-legal-fiction-contd.html
http://swaminathanv208.blogspot.com/2016/07/deeming-legal-fiction-contd.html
https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1724603330949279
To ADD: On a rapid glance
through the overwhelmingly too large number of suggestions, mostly of a
procedural nature, on aspects in respect whereof, without due acceptance and
clarity, implementation and proper compliance may be rendered /prove a
noon-starter ; but, except for a negligible number of them, the
rest do not, so far as known, seem to have been made a conscious note of and
acted upon.
Incidentally, wprt item F, in particular as regards the move to have "the inclusion of .....and stamp duty in GST", which needs to be completed, the purport or import of the suggestion is not at all clear, much less understood. Be that as it may, going by one's honest guess, mention of 'stamp duty in GST' is intended to yet again pin point the need for the duty to be subsumed by the GST; more specifically the duty paid on 'immovable property' . Premised so, as of now, levy of GST on immovable property is , at best a proposal, and left to be discussed. If so, on the strength of the Feed-input supplied through several Posts and available in public domain, the suggestion,in one's perspective, should, instead, have been to shelve, and eventually drop such a proposal .
<> Any other eminent view or insightful thoughts, with a different stroke, to share; to the end of making an appropriate suggestion for consideration by the government?
As per own tentative thoughts / view:
'Unit' (Flat/Apartment),inclusive of UDI, is an immovable property; and indisputably so, - and continue to be- under other laws / for several other purposes- mainly, for TP Act and Stamp Act.
It is only for GST, by introducing the newly invented concept of 'deemed works contract', -for which purpose the constitution had to be amended, hence so amended,- the extant status of 'immovable property' , excluding land, happens to receive a different treatment. Even so, it continues to be an immovable property for all other purposes- mainly TP Act and Stamp Act. In case, as suggested, if the idea of subsuming stamp duty in GST were to be gone ahead with, to put it with the least complicity, that may not be possible without first suitably amending the Constitution, and then, also all the other related laws.
Anyone with a different stroke of better thoughts?!
Incidentally, wprt item F, in particular as regards the move to have "the inclusion of .....and stamp duty in GST", which needs to be completed, the purport or import of the suggestion is not at all clear, much less understood. Be that as it may, going by one's honest guess, mention of 'stamp duty in GST' is intended to yet again pin point the need for the duty to be subsumed by the GST; more specifically the duty paid on 'immovable property' . Premised so, as of now, levy of GST on immovable property is , at best a proposal, and left to be discussed. If so, on the strength of the Feed-input supplied through several Posts and available in public domain, the suggestion,in one's perspective, should, instead, have been to shelve, and eventually drop such a proposal .
<> Any other eminent view or insightful thoughts, with a different stroke, to share; to the end of making an appropriate suggestion for consideration by the government?
As per own tentative thoughts / view:
'Unit' (Flat/Apartment),inclusive of UDI, is an immovable property; and indisputably so, - and continue to be- under other laws / for several other purposes- mainly, for TP Act and Stamp Act.
It is only for GST, by introducing the newly invented concept of 'deemed works contract', -for which purpose the constitution had to be amended, hence so amended,- the extant status of 'immovable property' , excluding land, happens to receive a different treatment. Even so, it continues to be an immovable property for all other purposes- mainly TP Act and Stamp Act. In case, as suggested, if the idea of subsuming stamp duty in GST were to be gone ahead with, to put it with the least complicity, that may not be possible without first suitably amending the Constitution, and then, also all the other related laws.
Anyone with a different stroke of better thoughts?!
within
https://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/manish-sisodia-calls-for-abolishing-igst-says-collection-money-lying-idle/story-cysfgcG66w0B5L6wTjuniP.html
>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1733957226680556
COURTESY (out of sheer empathy)
OTHERS:
1. Seller principal debtor; implied in the mandate to gross-up for
tax
2. Plant and machinery, on sale, a movable property
For buyer, when installed for use, is a capital asset, entitled to
depreciation allowance.
May be worthwhile to keep in mind, the special definition of, among others, the terms- 'transfer', 'capital asset', and 'immovable property', in the IT Act; for those are of contextual relevance herein. For the plethora of published articles, discussing in details the significance and implication thereof. For, for purposes of accounting by a realtor , and audit of the books of account and the final accounts, those aspects should necessarily be kept in view and followed unscrupulously, with no qualms whatsoever.
In Comparison, -
A) A Unit , with UDI in land and common facilities, on sale, is an immovable property; for promoter -seller, his stock-in-trade, right from day to completion of construction .
No right to convert into and sell unsold Units, as 'capital asset'
(hence, not taxable as notional income from HP)
B) For GST, stamp duty is not proposed to be subsumed.
Reasons:
For, at the time of conveyance, that is /could be conveyed only as
an immovable property. Hence stamp duty levy by state is
incumbent / inevitable.
No possibility of it being subsumed by GST, even remotely ; as , to
do so, would require firstly an amendment of the Constitution,
then of the Stamp Act , also drastic amendments of the TP Act ,
IT Act , and any other related - /interlinked -laws, even if
remotely.
C) The proposition that 'deemed works contract' is a misconceived
concept , that is to be regarded as immovable property is still
open;
and, if not to be taken as already settled, would require to be
seriously challenged / pursued for having the issue fully and
finally settled. Precisely stated, it is the seller's obligation to do
so, as he is the principal debtor for defraying the tax liability.
D) Seller is the person on whom the levy is made; and as the
principal debtor, he is the one who should pursue contesting
the levy to the end of ultimate success.
Feed- Input made available through material shared, to be
found in public domain, should be of immense guide and helpful
assistance for seller to do so; necessarily, of course, in
consultation with and under advice of an eminent top
counsel.
For a host of the material readily available for such purpose , -far more than adequate, which could be made use of, - suggest to look through the collation of the Blogs , -
@ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/units-flatapt-all-swaminathan-venkataraman/
On the question of 'effective date' , for purposes of compliance or enforcement of any enactment in general, of any law such as for levy of ST/VAT or GST on 'deemed construction contracts', there appears to be a gross misconception on the part of the realtors.
To be precise:
A) Levy of GST, not yet enacted but still in a state of absolute flux; even if and when made law could apply only prospectively,on or after the specified date of its coming into force.
And, for this purpose, as per governing legal principles in general , and as concluded by apex and other court rulings in particular, the levy could be applicable to incomplete project(s) in respect of which the contract agreement (i.e. the agreement to sell) has been executed and signed, respectively, by each buyer of Unit, after such specified date.
B) For levy of ST /VAT, the same principles as in A) above , must
equally good.
Further, having due regard to the legal implications of the above
cited Del. HC Judgment, and also of the other related Apex and
other Court Judgments,etc., in any view of the matter, the said
levy(ies) could not be applied - hence no demand or collection
made- for any period earlier than the date on which a fresh
enactment is / comes to be made effective; that is, the date on
which the contract agreement is executed and signed by each
buyer, in his individual case.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/manish-sisodia-calls-for-abolishing-igst-says-collection-money-lying-idle/story-cysfgcG66w0B5L6wTjuniP.html
>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1733957226680556
COURTESY (out of sheer empathy)
OTHERS:
1. Seller principal debtor; implied in the mandate to gross-up for
tax
2. Plant and machinery, on sale, a movable property
For buyer, when installed for use, is a capital asset, entitled to
depreciation allowance.
May be worthwhile to keep in mind, the special definition of, among others, the terms- 'transfer', 'capital asset', and 'immovable property', in the IT Act; for those are of contextual relevance herein. For the plethora of published articles, discussing in details the significance and implication thereof. For, for purposes of accounting by a realtor , and audit of the books of account and the final accounts, those aspects should necessarily be kept in view and followed unscrupulously, with no qualms whatsoever.
In Comparison, -
A) A Unit , with UDI in land and common facilities, on sale, is an immovable property; for promoter -seller, his stock-in-trade, right from day to completion of construction .
No right to convert into and sell unsold Units, as 'capital asset'
(hence, not taxable as notional income from HP)
B) For GST, stamp duty is not proposed to be subsumed.
Reasons:
For, at the time of conveyance, that is /could be conveyed only as
an immovable property. Hence stamp duty levy by state is
incumbent / inevitable.
No possibility of it being subsumed by GST, even remotely ; as , to
do so, would require firstly an amendment of the Constitution,
then of the Stamp Act , also drastic amendments of the TP Act ,
IT Act , and any other related - /interlinked -laws, even if
remotely.
C) The proposition that 'deemed works contract' is a misconceived
concept , that is to be regarded as immovable property is still
open;
and, if not to be taken as already settled, would require to be
seriously challenged / pursued for having the issue fully and
finally settled. Precisely stated, it is the seller's obligation to do
so, as he is the principal debtor for defraying the tax liability.
D) Seller is the person on whom the levy is made; and as the
principal debtor, he is the one who should pursue contesting
the levy to the end of ultimate success.
Feed- Input made available through material shared, to be
found in public domain, should be of immense guide and helpful
assistance for seller to do so; necessarily, of course, in
consultation with and under advice of an eminent top
counsel.
For a host of the material readily available for such purpose , -far more than adequate, which could be made use of, - suggest to look through the collation of the Blogs , -
@ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/units-flatapt-all-swaminathan-venkataraman/
On the question of 'effective date' , for purposes of compliance or enforcement of any enactment in general, of any law such as for levy of ST/VAT or GST on 'deemed construction contracts', there appears to be a gross misconception on the part of the realtors.
To be precise:
A) Levy of GST, not yet enacted but still in a state of absolute flux; even if and when made law could apply only prospectively,on or after the specified date of its coming into force.
And, for this purpose, as per governing legal principles in general , and as concluded by apex and other court rulings in particular, the levy could be applicable to incomplete project(s) in respect of which the contract agreement (i.e. the agreement to sell) has been executed and signed, respectively, by each buyer of Unit, after such specified date.
B) For levy of ST /VAT, the same principles as in A) above , must
equally good.
Further, having due regard to the legal implications of the above
cited Del. HC Judgment, and also of the other related Apex and
other Court Judgments,etc., in any view of the matter, the said
levy(ies) could not be applied - hence no demand or collection
made- for any period earlier than the date on which a fresh
enactment is / comes to be made effective; that is, the date on
which the contract agreement is executed and signed by each
buyer, in his individual case.
No comments:
Post a Comment