This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Second-hand flat buyers have Rights similar to Original Allottees: SC
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Charanjeet Singh (Supreme Court of India)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- Supreme Court of India
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Charanjeet Singh (Supreme Court of India)
Larger Bench of SC declares that HUDA v. Raje Ram 2008 (17) SCC 407 and Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Anr. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2020 SCC Online 667 (SC) are not good law- Purchaser of flat entitled to interest on delay by builder.
An important matter concerning the rights of a home purchaser (First Allottee) & nominee/ transferee of allotment rights of the First Allottee vis a vis the Builder came up for consideration before the 3 judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. ...
Author Info
As urged: The not -so-obvious implications of the SC Judgment call for an insightful study. Need to be so done wprt the ‘second purchaser’s’ right to the benefit of ITC credit /refund in a case which the promoter/seller has not passed it on to the first ‘purchaser’ , thereby has been guilty of ‘unjust enrichment’. More so, had the conveyance of ‘Apartment’ been effected to him by the promoter -seller in terms of a ‘tripartite agreement’, not before but after the ‘building’ has been completed, in all respects. For, in such a case, the enactment of ‘DEEMED WORKS CONTRACT’, even otherwise under challenge/litigation, will not be applicable /have any force !>>>
courtesy
Per Display <"2,997 Views"- Sadly , however, no value addition or FEED back, though expected , nothing has been forthcoming ?!
COMment 🙂
IMPROMPTU (in an attempt to share personal thoughts and viewpoints):
Calling For A Revisit To the related Pr. Posts/ Comment!
Further developments, last in the timeline as borne out by the reported SC Judgment in relation to the realty sector, go to reveal / betray the field reality obtaining till date. In that, the surrounding myth in regard to the concept of ‘ITC'(dovetailing GST Levy) – a misconceived one, – especially its adverse impact on the buyers’ lawful rights and vested interests, – has been woefully left to be made a conscious note of.
In the subj.SC Judgment, not having been addressed and argued, the ‘buyer’ has been held to be entitled, as claimed, to only a refund of the amounts paid to the realtor, together with compensatory interest thereon. So much so, the implications of ‘ITC’ have been left untouched/not considered.
Depending on the facts, however, the buyer, in a case-to-case basis, would in addition, be entitled to lawfully claim and be legitimately allowed, also the ‘ITC’ benefit entitlement available / availed of by the realtor but not passed on to the ‘buyer’.
For an independent study and forming a well-founded ‘opinion’,- by any of the eminent professionals in practice,- the FEED input supplied in, besides a host of others, –
A) the write-up displayed @
https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/tale-ado-nothing-levy-gst-real-estate.html
B) the personal Blog @ https://swaminathanv208.blogspot.com/2021/07/realtor-gst-v-itc-contd.html
OVER /BacK to …with an INvite to expertly EDIT and share contra viewpoints / OPinion, if any !?!