Just a moment...

Top
Help
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

GST on sale of land in exchange of apartments

Narayan Pujar

Hi,

In a JDA, a landowner transfers the development rights to developer in exchange of newly constructed apartments. GST law provides for taxability in such cases.

However, the other day I heard of an agreement wherein the landowner has sold the land through a sale deed in exchange of apartments/shops. In this, since one leg involves direct land transfer, it would not be liable to GST as per Schedule III.

My question is: Since direct land transfers are exempt under GST, why do people prefer Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) over outright land sales, even though development rights in a JDA attract GST? Additionally, the second leg of the transaction remains the same in both cases.

Could this preference be due to implications under other laws? If yes, then what would they be?

Exploring GST Implications: Why Joint Development Agreements Are Often Chosen Over Direct Land Sales Under Section 7(1A) In a discussion about Goods and Services Tax (GST) implications on land sales and Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), a participant questions why JDAs are preferred over outright land sales, given that direct land transfers are exempt from GST. Responses suggest that outright sales do not involve GST on development rights, but JDAs might be chosen for other benefits, such as future considerations. Additionally, the choice could depend on whether the land rights are leasehold or freehold. Historical legal uncertainties and potential future clarifications, such as the Supreme Court's stance, also influence these decisions. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Sadanand Bulbule on Dec 19, 2024

Dear

Once there is an outright sale of land to the developer, the question of "Transfer of Development Right" attracting GST liability does not arise.However JDA might be for various other factors. Every JDA need not attract tax liability.

Shilpi Jain on Dec 23, 2024

Without receiving any consideration, the landowner would be at the mercy of the developer if he would execute a sale deed for a consideration to be received in the future. That's why they execute a JDA.

Manoj Thakur on Dec 24, 2024

Also depends on whether the land owner's rights are leasehold or freehold. Situation was different pre 1.4.2019 when 6 notifications in related matters attempted to define a clearer path. In both service tax and GST regimes, handling of society redevelopment transactions has been has been open to doubts. Supreme Court's validation of the Vasantha Green Projects case is expected to clear the matter on service tax at least. Extension to GST may come in future, till when such notices and orders are expected to continue to litigate.

+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues