Moves with good intentions deserve appreciations.

Story one: in the year 2007, when we were under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 regime and there were no computers to keep the credit and debit of cenvat credit such as electronic credit ledger, electronic cash ledger etc. one of the dealing assistant has inadvertently entered the cenvat credit of one crore as ten crore. As that company was having a turnover of around 3,000 crores per annum during that year, the credit was lying as it is for almost six months. In between Central Excise audit took place and the audit team has pointed out this error. A sum of nine crores was immediately reversed in line with the actual entitlement. However, demand was raised on the ground that credit, even if wrongly availed attracts interest as per rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as stood at that time.

Due representation was made to CBEC (Now CBIC) at the highest level (Member-Excise) to remove this lacuna. We demonstrated before the then CBEC team headed by Member Central Excise as to what is tax, what is interest and what is penalty. Tax is a component which is collected with authority of law. Penalty is for contravention of any rule or regulation or requirement of law. Interest is a compensation factor and as and when tax is not paid in time, or wrongly availed Cenvat Credit is utilsed, the Government is required to levy interest. In our case, even in case we have availed 100 Crores as against 10 Crores and not even a small portion is utilized and the entire amount of excess credit is reversed before utilization, there is no loss for Government and the question of levy of interest does not arise.

The above was given by way representation to Joint secretary (TRU) and the follow up continued for few years. During the budget exercise during 2012, the relief came to the entire trade and industry due to our constant efforts as above which resulted in issuance of Notification number 18/2012 Central Excise Non Tariff which reads as " In rule 14 of the said rules, with effect from the 17th day of March, 2012,-(a) for the words taken or utilised wrongly, the words taken and utilised wrongly shall be substituted;

To put it simply, the law was amended by replacing the word "or" with "and" with prospective effect on 17/03/2012, benefitting the country as a whole. The replacement of just one word has made huge difference for the taxpayers.

Be that as it may, the idea is that the Government is responsive when the request is genuine. Moving further, based on various representations from time to time, reforms were made in GST Law during September 2025. The rate rationalization made effective during September 2025 is the proof that Government listens.

Story two: Almost all proposals approved by the GST Council on 08/10/2026 are taxpayer friendly except one or two such as composite show cause notice for multiple financial years.

It is now evident that by way of appraising the difficulties to the most appropriate authorities, it is possible to get the law amended. This is a great message to the construction industry. All the companies engaged in construction of immovable property are severely affected due to clause d of sub-section 5 of section 17 of the CGST Act. In case due representation is given to ministry of finance on the difficulties arising out of 17(5)(d) supported with facts and figures, the desired results likely to happen by 01/04/2028. A joint representation is required from:

Since 01/07/2017, till September 2025, the tax officials were not bound to improve as the issues on GST were not getting set settled at that time. Time has changed completely and GSTAT is passing final orders (mostly without remand or remand with instruction) making the GST officials binding. The fact that 359 cases have already been disposed by GSTAT reveals that the adjudication officers have to fall in line. This is exactly what happened on 08/10/2026 GST Council meeting. The Government has laid the road map for future adjudication.

Being a professional, dealing exclusively GST, I observe that the real estate sector is paying either huge GST which is unwarranted or denied ITC even on genuine transactions due to curbs created by 17(5)(d). A small example is a 2000 square feet luxury apartment in Chennai today cost around 5 Crores making a square feet rate as 25000, whereas GST is attracted at 5% on full value, assuming a tax rate of 7.50% on 66.67%. It means that there is an assumption that the land cost is 1/3 and construction cost is 2/3. In reality, the land cost, which is separately identifiable is as high as 70% in premium localities like Adyar, Guindy etc. There is no GST on sale of land and GST is only on the building. This is the proof for excess GST being paid on residential apartments which is passed on to the buyer as no ITC is available on construction activities for the developer/ promoter. As this Government is responsive, let us appreciate all concerned for whatever reforms proposed in 57th GST council meeting and let CREDAI take the lead to start the required representation to Ministry of Finance, Government of India for reforms required exclusively for Real Estate Sector.