TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Honble Karnataka High Court has held that since Developer has paid GST liability on 100% amount of property including 30% revenue share of Land Owner under JDA, the question of double taxation on revenue share being paid by Developer to Landowner does not arise.
Hence, No GST Liability on Revenue share received by Landowner under JDA.
Relevant paras of the judgment are extracted as under:
8. The aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the adjudication order dated 28.12.2023 was passedagainst the registered person i.e., Developer - M/s. DivyaSree Projects pursuant to which the said person discharged the entire GST liability inrelation to the entire property including the 30% share of the petitioner under the Joint Development Agreement dated 06.02.2017 andconsequently, the question of there being double taxation i.e., payment being made by the aforesaid M/s. DivyaSree Projects and once againpayment being demanded from the petitioner would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the impugned orderdeserves to be quashed.
9. In so far as the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate and the finding recorded by the respondent No. 1 that the Joint Development Agreement dated 06.02.2017 being unregistered cannot be made the basis to exempt the petitioner from payment of GST is concerned, as stated supra, prior to the impugned order, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit)-4.1, DGSTO-4, Bengaluru has already recognized, accepted and acted upon the aforesaid Joint Development Agreement for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the GST liability was to be discharged by the Developer and has accepted payment from it and consequently, in the light of the finding recorded by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit)-4.1, DGSTO-4, Bengaluru, the respondent No. 1 clearly was estopped from taking adiametrically opposite stand and rendering a contrary finding that the Joint Development Agreement dated 06.02.2017. Under these circumstances, this contention urged by the learned Additional Government Advocate cannot be accepted.