Real estate GST option applies project-wise, not unit-wise, and advance rulings bind only the applicant and jurisdictional officer.
Under the real estate GST notification, the option to continue the old rate for an ongoing project had to be exercised for the project as a whole, not for selected villas or units. The AAR read the notification with the statutory real estate definitions and CBIC clarifications and held that even where parts of the project had separate approvals or bookings, the project remained one integrated ongoing project for the option. It therefore applied to all apartments or villas in that project. The ruling also held that an advance ruling binds only the applicant and the jurisdictional officer concerned, and only on the same facts, law, and circumstances.
Issues: (i) Whether the option to continue the old GST rate under the real estate notification could be exercised for part of an ongoing project or only for the entire project; (ii) whether the advance ruling would apply to the applicant's other similar projects.
Issue (i): Whether the option to continue the old GST rate under the real estate notification could be exercised for part of an ongoing project or only for the entire project.
Analysis: The notification introducing the revised real estate tax structure preserved the old rate for ongoing projects, subject to the promoter exercising the prescribed option within time. The expressions "project", "ongoing project", "Real Estate Project", and "apartment" were read together with the statutory definition under the real estate law and the CBIC clarifications. On that reading, the option was held to be available project-wise and not unit-wise or for a segmented part of the same project. Even where part of a project had separate approvals or bookings, the project remained one integrated ongoing project for the purpose of the option.
Conclusion: The option could not be exercised only for selected villas or units; it had to apply to the entire ongoing project. The old rate therefore applied to all apartments or villas in the project.
Issue (ii): Whether the advance ruling would apply to the applicant's other similar projects.
Analysis: The statutory rule governing advance rulings limits their binding effect to the applicant and the jurisdictional officer in relation to that applicant, unless the law, facts, or circumstances change. The ruling was therefore confined to the applicant's own cases and could not operate as a general determination for unrelated persons.
Conclusion: The ruling was binding only for the applicant's similar projects in similar factual situations.
Final Conclusion: The tax position favoured continuation of the old rate for the entire ongoing project, and the ruling's binding force remained confined to the applicant and the concerned officer.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a real estate notification permits a one-time option for ongoing projects, the option is to be exercised for the project as a whole and not for selected units within it; advance rulings bind only the applicant and the jurisdictional officer concerned.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
