Log in Register

Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Create an account

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Name *
Username *
Password *
Verify password *
Email *
Verify email *
Captcha *
View more blog entries

Consult Construction

Consult Us For Construction

Implications of Clarification F.No.354/311/2015-TRU issued by Tax Research Unit, Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 20.01.2016

The recent clarification issued by TRU has raised lot of controversy and confusion in the manner of discharging service tax liability on,
a. Society re-development
b. Land owner granting development right to a developer who will build some portion and give the same to the land owner in consideration of the development right.

As the consideration of above services are not stated in monetory terms, as stated in S.67(1) of FA 1994, the developers were discharging the service tax liability on value of development right as arrived for the purpose of stamp duty valuation on above services under works. Some developers were discharging the liability on cost of construction basis as provided in Rule 3 (b) of Service Tax Determination of Value Rules, 2012. To arrive at cost of construction they were relying on ready reckoner value of construction.

The above clarification re-iterates certain contents of earlier Circular No.151/2/2012-ST dtd. 10.02.2012, advocating that rehab flats or the flats allotted to landlord should be valued at the rates at which similar flats/units are sold by the developer/builder to outsiders. The crux/essence of the said circular is as under:

• Value of land/development rights in the land may not be ascertainable ordinarily.

• Hence, value of flats given to the land owner, is determinable in terms of section 67(1)(iii) of the Act read with rule 3(a) of Valuation Rules.

• Accordingly value of rehab flats/units (or to the landowners) would be equal to the value of similar flats/ units sold by the builder/developer to normal buyers (other than land owners).

• If the price of the flats/units undergoes a change over the period of sale, the value to be considered will be similar flats/units which are sold nearer to the date on which land is being made available for construction.

• The builder/developer would be liable to pay service tax on flats/ units given to the land owner at the time of possession or right in the property in the said flat are transferred to the land owner by entering into conveyance deed or similar instrument (Allotment letter).

Now, the TRU later states that on representation of builders/developers to clarify the issue of valuation a High Level Committee (HLC) was formed and from the representatives of the industry (?) the decision is taken to deviate from the view expressed in the education guide. It is important to know what view was expressed in the education guide dtd. 20.6.2012, explaining the provisions of Negative list based taxation from 1.7.2012.

“6.2.1 What would be the liability to pay service tax on flats/houses agreed to be given by builder/developer to the land owner towards the land /development rights and to other buyers. If payable, how would the services be valued?

Here two important transactions are identifiable: (a) sale of land by the landowner which is not a taxable service; and (b) construction service provided by the builder/developer. The builder/developer receives consideration for the construction service provided by him, from two categories of service receivers: (a) from landowner: in the form of land/development rights; and (b) from other buyers: normally in cash.

Construction service provided by the builder/developer is taxable in case any part of the payment/development rights of the land was received by the builder/ developer before the issuance of completion certificate and the service tax would be required to be paid by builder/ developers even for the flats given to the land owner.

6.2.2 What would be the service tax liability in the following model - land is owned by a society, comprising members of the society with each member entitled to his share by way of an apartment. Society/individual flat owners give 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) or permission to the builder/developer, for re-construction. The builder/ developer makes new flats with same or different carpet area for original owners of flats and additionally may also be involved in one or more of the following: (i) construct some additional flats for sale to others; (ii) arrange for rental accommodation or rent payments for society members/original owners for stay during the period of reconstruction; (iii) pay an additional amount to the original owners of flats in the society.

Under this model, the builder/developer receives consideration for the construction service provided by him, from two categories of service receivers. First category is the society/members of the society, who transfer development rights over the land (including the permission for additional number of flats), to the builder/developer. The second category of service receivers consist of buyers of flats other than the society/members. Generally, they pay by cash.

Re-construction undertaken by a building society by directly engaging a builder/developer will be chargeable to service tax as works contract service for all the flats built now.”

The HLC states that Education guide itself says that it is a mere education aid based on a broad understanding of a team of officers on the issues. It is neither a “Departmental circular” nor it is a manual instruction issued by CBEC. To that extent it does not command the required legal backing to be binding on the either side in any manner. The education guide was released purely a measure of facilitation so that all the stakeholders could obtain some preliminary understanding of new issues for smooth transition to new tax regime.

It is said that the HLC has opined that clarification given in circular no.151/2/2012 – ST dated 10.02.2012 is more appropriate and said circular prevails over the Education Guide, 2012.


It appears that since the department has collected data from many builders/developers and is in doldrum as to how to deal with the data for levy of service tax, the TRU has issued above circular purely from the angle of collecting more revenue by picking up bits and pieces which suits them from the earlier circular. The directions to the department coming out from the said TRU letter is as follows:-

• Assessing authorities to follow the Circular No. 151/2/2012 – ST dated 10.02.2012 for valuing the construction services provided by builder/developer to land owner against transfer of land / development rights and levy service tax on the basis of sale of flats from free sale portion and timing of payment of service tax. This is now made applicable for re-hab flats also.

• Assessing officers are clearly instructed not to follow the education guide for valuing flats allotted to land owner against the transfer of land/development rights.

Adverse Consequences of above referred clarification:

1. Value of FSI/development rights would be much less than the value of the free sale area flats as the value of the land is also embodied in it.
2. The society/landlord deriving right to get the constructed flats from DA which can never be equated with sale to a new buyer. The concept of adoption of value of similar flat (market rates) fails on these grounds amongst others.
3. The tax incidence on the developer would be very high as being output service provider to the landlord/society and also to the new purchasers, no cenvat can be allowed interse.

Cases of most of the builders and developers are under audit or scrutiny by the service tax department. The Departmental officers are bound by CBEC’s circulars and clarifications. This would result into following:

• Anti Evasion wing, audit wing or director general of central excise
intelligence (DGCEI) will initiate rowing inquiries and investigations for most of the builders and developers.
• Such inquiry and investigation would be for last 5 years.
• Service tax authorities would demand service tax for last 5 years on
enhanced value of services. Even the concluded audit cases and/ or pending adjudications would be vulnerable.
• Service tax authorities would levy interest ranging from 18% p.a to 30% p.a.
• Department may initiate the penalty proceedings also.
• This all may result into great chaos and harassment for entire industry.

Whether clarification lays down correct legal position?

This clarification is patently wrong as it tries to levy service tax on the value of reconstructed flats/units as a consideration received by society members /tenants / land owner for grating development rights to the builder/developer.

Service tax is a tax on consideration received by the builder/developer for providing construction services in respect of rehab construction and construction on landlord portion. The builder receives construction in form of development rights (not the reconstructed flats) for constructing such flats and hence monetary value of such consideration (development right) is only taxable.

Department is trying to tax value of the flats as if it is a consideration for sale of development rights and not the consideration actually received by the builder/ developer for providing construction services.

Circular is based on an erroneous notion that the value of development rights is not ascertainable and hence construction service in respect of Rehab flats/units are to be valued u/s 67(1)(iii) read with Rule 3 of Valuation Rules. As explained earlier, the value of the development right is ascertainable and same is ascertained by the state government for stamp duty assessment. Such value is published by State Government in Ready Reckoner. In other words, the market value of the development right is in the public domain.

As explained earlier, the monetary value of consideration (development right) is ascertainable, the rehab services is to be valued as per section 67(1)(ii) of the Act and not as per Section 67(1)(iii) of the Act as proposed by this recent TRU clarification.

It is settled jurisprudence that:

• Circulars are meant to clarify the law and not to lay down a law.
• Circular cannot prevail or override the express provision of law.
• Circular is not binding on a court.
• Circular is not binding on assessee.
• Circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.
• Circular cannot enhance the liability or abrogate the rights conferred on him by statute.

It is absolutely clear that above referred TRU clarification overrides or prevail over section 67(1)(ii) of the Act and hence is ultra virus.

Recent TRU clarification states that Education Guide is neither a ‘Departmental Circular’ nor a manual of instruction by CBEC and hence to that extent it does not command any legal backing to be binding on either side in any manner and hence Circular as such would prevail over Education Guide. The Education Guide is like a promissory estoppel given by executive arm of Finance Ministry. If the education guide does not have legal sanctity, whether the Circular which is not in conformity of legal provisions can be said to be legally tenable? And if not so, the same can be challenged.

Way forward:

• Recent TRU clarification clearly overrides express provision of the statute. It is an oppressive clarification.

• Service tax authorities will take recourse of this clarification and would act aggressively for tax collections. This would result into enquiries, investigations, issuance of Show Cause Notices (SCNs), adjudication proceedings, coercive recoveries, long drawn costly and hazardous litigations.

• This clarification need to be quashed at threshold. It may be worth to challenge the validity and vires of this clarification.

• We strongly recommend the builder/developer to seek advice of senior counsel (having expertise in service tax and property law) as to what would be advisable action.


Following aspects needs to be discussed and deliberated:

• What is ‘development right’ ? whether it can be transferred in part, for eg. if landlord keeps 40% share of constructed area and the developer gets 60% free sale, can it be said that only 60% of development right is transferred to the developer ? what is the timing of effective transfer of development right – whether when DA is entered or when necessary condition of DA are fulfilled or whether when the conveyance of the entire property is made in favour of a co-operative society or such other entity.

• Whether writ can be filed in such a case and same is maintainable?

• What is the cause of action necessitating to move to High Court?

• Jurisdiction aspect- in which court one has to file writ?

• Who will be the petitioner i.e. individual builder/developer or the institution like BAI, CREDAI, MCHI, etc?

• Whether the concept of “similar service” as a valuation method is appropriate in the context of service tax given the fact the no two service can be said to be “similar” and therefore the same cannot be applied in the context of given situation. Whether virus of those rules needs to be challenged ?

• Selection of counsel/ lawyer firm.

• Cost aspect.

Hits: 3219 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:

  • HC upholds Tribunal order, rejects assessee's claim for higher land cost deduction (i.e. 50% of sale consideration) on construction and sale of apartments, over and above cost disclosed in returns;
  • Appellate Authority, though on facts concluded that, land cost as per registered sale deed and CA Certificate was over 50%, he restricted same to claim made in returns by assessee (i.e. 45%), which was upheld by Tribunal; Relies on Division Bench ratio in Infinite Builders & Developers and Centum Industries Private Ltd.;
  • States, if assessee failed to avail benefit of revised return then, only return which is filed has to be considered by authorities; Observes, "nothing more than what is claimed by assessee in its return can be given by authorities, and if it permitted, then the assessing authority or appellate authorities would be given unfettered powers to grant any relief which may not even have been claimed by the assessee in its returns"
  • Karnataka HC
Hits: 911 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:



Date: 24th June, 2015


No.S.O.25/P.A.8/2002/S.25/2015.-In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Punjab Infrastructure (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 2002), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that a fee shall be levied,-

(i) at the rate of rupees five, for every hundred rupees on the value of electricity consumed excluding any other levies or duties, as the case may be:

Provided that the aforesaid fee, shall not be levied in those cases, which are exempted from the payment of electricity duty; and

(ii) at the rate of rupee one, for every hundred rupees on the value of purchase of any immovable property:

Provided that the said fee shall not be levied if such immovable property is transferred by way of a sale deed in favour of any blood relation or spouse, as the case may be.


Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab,

Department of Finance 

Hits: 1191 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:
State of Karnataka
Reddy Structure (P.) Ltd.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These revision petitions are placed before us for admission. By consent, they are heard for final disposal at this stage. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent at the outset invites our attention to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0985/2013MANU/SC/0985/2013 : [2013] 38 taxmann.com 98 : 41 STT 113 and submitted that the question raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the said judgment.

2. Having confronted with this, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the submission advanced by learned senior Counsel for the respondent.

3. According to the learned senior Counsel for the respondent, only the following (the first) question arise for our consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that other two questions, as framed in the memorandum of petitions, are just a repetition of the first question and they need not be considered independently. The first question reads thus:--

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is justified in giving a finding that deducting the value of land from the total receipt of the builder is impermissible, but only value of the transfer of property in goods has to be considered for the purpose of assessment by adding G.P., as the same is against provisions of law?

In short, the question that falls for our consideration is whether the land value should form part of taxable value for levy of V.A.T. or Sales Tax?

4. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph 100 of the said report, which reads thus:

100. We have no doubt that the State Legislatures lack legislative power to levy tax on the transfer of immovable property under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. However, the States do have competence to levy sales tax on the sale of goods in an agreement of sale of flat which also has a component of a deemed sale of goods. Aspects theory though does not allow the State Legislature to entrench upon the Union List and tax services by including the cost of such service in the value of goods but that does not detract the State to tax the sale of goods element involved in the execution of works contract in a composite contract like contract for construction of building and sale of a flat therein.

The Supreme Court further in paragraph 101 of the report summarized the legal position. For our purpose, sub-para (xi) of paragraph 101 is relevant, which reads thus:

(xi) Taxing the sale of goods element in a works contract under Article 366(29A)(b) read with Entry 54 List II is permissible even after incorporation of goods provided tax is directed to the value of goods and does not purport to tax the transfer of immovable property. The value of the goods which can constitute the measure for the levy of the tax has to be the value of the goods at the time of incorporation of the goods in works even though property passes as between the developer and the flat purchaser after incorporation of goods.

5. From bare perusal of the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph-100 and the conclusion drawn in sub-paragraph (xi) of para-101, it is clear answer to the question raised in the revision petitions. We do find ourselves in agreement with learned senior Counsel for the respondent that the question raised in these revision petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this legal position. Hence we answer the substantial question of law in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.

6. Before we part, we record the statement of learned senior Counsel for the respondent, made on instructions from his client who is present in the Court, that the respondent-developer has paid V.A.T./Sales Tax on the entire material cost that was used for construction of the building and in the present case, the only question is deduction of land cost. His statement is accepted and record. It is open to the petitioner, if they find it necessary to verify correctness of the statement and if they find it incorrect, they may take appropriate steps against the assessee in accordance with law. With these observations, this group of sales tax revision petitions is disposed of. No costs.

Hits: 1730 0 Comments
Rate this blog entry:

Article Series – New found Taxability of Builders / Developers

- Well, works contract is a topic which has now got a new meaning and definition. Recently Honourable Apex court in a recent judgement in the case of L&T has held that the construction of residential complex by developers is a works contract.

- The constitutional amendment of 1982 got a new meaning in a way that the words "in some other form" from the phrase - transfer of property (as goods or in some other form) could even be in the form of an immovable property. Not only that the court has held that point of transfer of property in goods need not necessarily be by way of accretion but after some time in the form of an immovable property.

- Thus trying to close out all ways in which the builders could have escaped from calling themselves as contractors. Interestingly since the court has termed them as contractors, those who are doing the actual construction on their behalf have become sub-contractors. And thus despite the fact that the VAT pill may be tough to digest for the builder community, they are left with very less options but to plan the future transactions. Some may even try and avail the C Form benefit, now that the end product has been held to be taxable under VAT.

- The problem now is that the rational builders may now try to fully comply with the new law (which is applicable retrospectively), but the past would continue to haunt them. Hence any new compliances may have to be done by creating a new entity.

- Some ways in which the future transactions could be structured are as below :-

  1. Sell of the lands to a new entity and engage in proper compliances in the new entity. Although this mode would entail additional costs in terms of stamp duty payable on transfer of land.
  2. Enter into a Joint Development Agreement with a contractor and thus all future construction would be undertaken by this contractor.
  3. Create a back to back entity and offload the complete contracting work to the new entity including purchase of  materials and labour.
  4. Sell the lands to the prospective customers and let them appoint the contractor on their own. This could require them to get their plans passed independently.

- Each of these options has its own merits and demerits and the implications arising out of each option needs to be studied carefully not only from a tax point of view, but also control and legal point of view.

- The analysis should take into account the complete impact of taxation including stamp duty, Income Tax, VAT and Service Tax. It should also take into account the fact that there are various schemes under indirect taxes under which the tax liability may be discharged by the real estate developer as well as the contractors working under him. Thus theoretically there could be several models which would emerge out of this.

- We would thus advice that proper professional help should be taken before making any decision in this regard.

Recent Comments - Show all comments
  • Srinivas M
    Srinivas M says #
    Hi, I booked a flat in Hyderabad and paid some amount against each milestone they have laid. They have collected the service taxe
  • Consult Construction
    Consult Construction says #
    In case of continuous service where milestones are fixed, the applicable rate for the amount paid on completion of such milestone
Hits: 1448 2 Comments
Rate this blog entry:

Like us on facebook

Twitter Feed

ConsultC Please find the latest presentation given to select gathering of real estate developers at Kolkata on West Bengal H… https://t.co/Uizrcczy13
ConsultC Apart from the intricacies of the Forms and constant regulatory changes, GST has a lot of other aspects. We had an… https://t.co/YB1asAgU2s
ConsultC Second Edition of our book released with latest amendments upto September, 2018 https://t.co/eOwUcNZife


304, Super Plaza, Sandesh Press Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad
+91 - 079 - 40032950
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

markerFind on Google Maps

Who we are

We are Ahmedabad based professional consulting firm. We are providing various services to Construction, Real Estate and Project Companies in various areas like Indirect Taxation – Service Tax & Multi state VAT consultancy, ERP implementation, Site & Management audit, Designing Tender & other related contractual documents etc.