Case Law Details
Shrinivasa Realcon Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Anti-Evasion Branch (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court, in the case of Shrinivasa Realcon Private Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Anti-Evasion Branch, addressed the applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a development agreement. The petitioner challenged a notice demanding GST based on Entry 5B of a notification, which pertains to services supplied by way of transfer of development rights or Floor Space Index (FSI) for project construction by a promoter. The agreement in question, dated January 7, 2022, appointed the petitioner as a developer for a land parcel to construct a multi-storied complex, with monetary consideration and two apartments allocated to the landowner. The petitioner argued that this transaction did not constitute a supply of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as defined under relevant regulations, and the GST Act itself lacks a definition for TDR.
The respondent’s counsel attempted to link Entry 5B to a clause in the development agreement, arguing it implied a transfer attracting GST. However, the court examined the language of Entry 5B, noting it refers to services supplied “by way of transfer of development rights or Floor Space Index (FSI).” The court interpreted “transfer of development rights” in conjunction with “FSI” to specifically mean TDR as defined in the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra. These regulations define TDR as compensation in the form of FSI or development rights entitling the owner to construct built-up area. The court reasoned that the rights a developer obtains from a landowner under a development agreement to construct buildings for the owners, in exchange for the right to sell certain units, are distinct from the transfer of TDR or FSI as contemplated by Entry 5B.
In this particular case, the development agreement granted the petitioner the right to develop the property using its existing FSI or any future increases. The petitioner’s counsel affirmed that no TDR or FSI was purchased by either the owner or the developer from any external entity during the agreement’s execution. The court further analyzed the specific clause cited by the respondent, finding it merely pertained to the landowner’s obligation to execute a deed of declaration under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act and apartment deeds for individual buyers nominated by the developer. Consequently, the Bombay High Court concluded that the transaction outlined in the development agreement did not fall under the purview of Entry 5B of the GST notification. As a result, the court quashed and set aside both the show cause notice and the subsequent demand order, allowing the petitioner’s plea without imposing any costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
On 11.12.2024, while issuing notice we have recorded the following position.
“1. Heard Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petition questions the notice dated 24.7.2024 (Page 120), by which the petitioner has been asked to pay the amount of tax as ascertained upon the transaction as contemplated by the agreement of sale dated 7.1.2022 under the terms of which the petitioner has been appointed as a developer by the owner, to develope the land of Plot No.2 admeasuring 8000 sq. ft., Mouza Lendra, into a multi-storied complex for the monetary consideration of Rs.7/- crores and two apartments as indicated in clause (2) (Page 31). It also challenges the second show cause notice dated 14.8.2024 (Page 123) by which GST has been claimed upon the aforesaid transaction in terms of clause (5-B) of the Notification dated 28th June, 2017 (Page 131) as it stands amended by the subsequent Notification dated 29th March, 2019 (Page 135).
3. It is contended, that the transaction as is witnessed by the Agreement of Development dated 7.1.2022 does not fall within the scope and ambit of clause (5-B) so as to attract G.S.T. as all that the clause indicates is a service supplied by any person by way of transfer of development rights or FSI for construction of a project by a Promoter. Prima face, on perusal of the agreement dated 7.1.2022 would indicate that it has nothing to do with supply of any TDR, which is defined under Regulation 11.2 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for the State. It is material to note that the GST Act does not define what is meant by Transfer of Development Right (TDR).”
2. Mr. Nalamwar, learned counsel for the respondents today seeks to relate, Entry 5B in the Notification dated 29.03.2019 (page 135), to clause 18 of the agreement of development dated 07.4.2022 (page 35), to contend, that it would contemplate transfer and therefore, entry 5B would be attracted, so as to permit the respondents to levy GST upon the said transaction.
3. Entry 5B inserted in the Notification dated 28.6.2017 (page 131), reads as under :
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| “5B | Services supplied by any person by way of transfer of development rights or Floor Space Index (FSI) (including additional FSI) for construction of a project by a promotor | Any person |
Promoter |
4. A perusal of the language of entry 5B, above would indicate, that it relates to services which can be said to be supplied by any person by way of transfer of development rights or Floor Space Index (FSI) [including additional FSI] for construction of a project by a promoter. The expression “transfer of development rights” read in conjunction with ‘FSI’ as indicated in entry 5B, would only relate to a TDR (Transferable Development Rights) as contemplated by clause 11.2.2 under the regulations for grant of TDR in the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for the State of Maharashtra, clause 11.2.1 of which defines transferable development rights, to mean compensation in the form of Floor Space Index (FSI) or development rights, which shall entitle the owner for construction of built up area subject to the provisions in the said regulations. It therefore, follows, that the TDR / FSI as contemplated by entry 5B, cannot be related, to the rights which a developer derives from the owner under the agreement of development for constructing the building for the owners, in lieu of the owner agreeing to permit the developer to transfer certain built up units for consideration to be appropriated by the developer.
5. In the instant case, the agreement dated 07.4.2022 (page 27) is an agreement of development entered into between the petitioner and the land owner, in terms of which, the petitioner, has been granted right to develop the property in question by utilizing its present FSI or any increases thereof. Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel, upon instructions, submits, that in the execution of the agreement dated 07.4.2022 no TDR or FSI has been purchased by the owner or for that matter by the petitioner from any person / entity whomsoever.
6. Clause 18 relied upon by Mr. Nalamwar, learned counsel for the respondents merely indicates, that the owners shall sign and execute a deed of declaration under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, submitting the entire scheme to the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act and the execution of the apartment deeds in favour of each individual buyers to the nominees of the developers. It is, therefore, apparent, that the transaction as contemplated in terms of the agreement dated 07.4.2022 does not fall within entry 5B of the Notification dated 28.6.2017, as it stand amended by the Notification dated 29.3.2019, in view of which, neither the show cause notice dated 14.08.2023 (page 123) nor the consequent order dated 10.12.2024 (page 137), can be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Author Bio
