Case Law Details
Case Name : Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and ors. (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No. 2022 OF 2007
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/04/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Bombay High Court
Bombay HC dismisses petition challenging applicability of VAT on sale of flats
THE Bombay High Court appears to have served a body blow to realtors in Maharashtra. The HC today dismissed their petition that challenged the applicability of Value Added Tax (VAT) on sale of flats. The builders argued that VAT is not payable on immovable property.
The court, however, upheld the 2006 amendments to Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act that brought “construction” on the tax radar.
The builders will now have to cough up outstanding VAT dues since 2006.
The builders will now challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
I registered my flat in Pune on Jan 27, 2006. But I paid about 75 % of the value before June 20, 2006 and the remaing 25% was paid after JUne 20, 2006. Can anybody tell whethere I am liable to pay VAT and if yes how much. Secondly, whether some set off agaisnt the VAT paid on inputs would be applibale.
where could we get a copy of this judgement
@vswami
Rider>
The crucial narration of the verdict reads:
“The court, however, upheld the 2006 amendments to Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act that brought “construction” on the tax radar.”
In one’s perception, because of inability to readily locate and read self the referred Judgment, one has no clue whether or not, in the writ, the point of challenge was the ‘constitutionality validity’ , as such, of the ‘2006 amendments’ . This, in one’s view, is an aspect so clinching that it necessarily requires to be kept in sharp focus, as a core issue for adjudication, in making a study and analysis, as suggested, of the court’s verdict set out very briefly. For, In general, going by past experience, as the long drawn conviction goes, ‘the devil’ (crux) is (to be found) in details.
Pending a detailed study of the Judgment, the view the HC is reported to have handed down is not readily understood; especially, in the context of the common understanding of the fundamentals involved. It might be worthwhile to study how the HC has dealt with arguments od both sides on the implications of the 2006 amendments referred to. Now, it is left for those having insightful knowledge of the varying type of controversies floating around might have to go through, with a multi dimensional approach, to analyse the Judgment in proper light; a fine toothed comb alone can help. So as to be armed with a clear perception of the underlying implications. Further, there is a dire need to do so, without waiting for a final verdict from the highest court.
The extant provisions of the I T Act, the manner in which they have been framed, for bringing with its net the property in the form of a ‘Flat’ , perhaps, will provide useful clues.