TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aratha Chakravarthy For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Suresh Kumar, (in W.P.No.33993 of 2024), Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan, (in W.P.No.4203 of 2025) And Mr. K. S. Viswanathan, Senior Counsel, for M/s. T. Hemalatha (in remaining W.Ps) For the Respondents : Mr. R. Viduthalai, Senior Counsel for Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Standing Counsel (TNHB) (in all W.Ps) COMMON ORDER Since all these Writ Petitions are for identical grievances and are interconnected, they are addressed collectively and resolved through this common order. 2. The brief factual background leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions is that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TNHB') is a body corporate, created and incorporated by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961. It is fully owned, sponsored, and operated by the State of Tamil Nadu. It engages in the formation of housing projects under various schemes throughout Tamil Nadu. These Writ Petitions concern the development of land through a Real Estate Project into residential flats within the city of Chennai, specifically (i) in Nandanam division and (ii) in Anna Nagar Division. It suffices to state that there is no subsidiary or special entitleme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al was obtained on 01.02.2021 and the project was registered and approved with RERA on 23.02.2021. On 18.08.2021, an advertisement was published in all the leading newspapers concerning the project, setting the cost at Rs. 10,500/- per Sq.ft and specifically stating it as inclusive of G.S.T. Similarly, the petitioners applied and by following a similar procedure, have now paid the entire original sale consideration that was agreed upon and notices were issued requesting them to pay the 5% of the total sale consideration as G.S.T. It is noted that out of the 72 units, 60 persons have already paid the 5% G.S.T, and only 11 are before this Court. Among these 11 individuals, 8 have already made payments without prejudice to their rights in the Writ Petition. Sale deeds were also executed for 24 purchasers. The simple case of the petitioners is that when TNHB holds out, through clear and categorical advertisements and notices, that the cost fixed per square foot is inclusive of G.S.T, they are thereafter estopped from claiming G.S.T additionally. 6. The Writ Petition is resisted by the respondents through the filing of a counter-affidavit. They argue that the price of the flat is calcu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15228000 13770000 14122000 14142000 16 Final Selling Price already appd pricing meeting dt 30.07.2020 / Now recommended 14554000 14338000 15229000 13770000 14122000 14143000 17 rate per sq.ft 9887 9888 9883 9892 9889 9890 19 GST 5% for service 727700 716909 761450 688500 706100 707150 20 Final selling price including GST 5% 15281700 15054990 15990450 14458500 14828100 14850150 21 After adding GST rate per sq.ft 10382 10383 10377 10387 10384 10385 7. Furthermore, the cost breakdown under various categories is also filed before this Court and is extracted hereunder: Thus, they argue that when the cost was originally calculated for the construction works contract outsourced to third parties, the 12% G.S.T was included in the cost per square foot that was determined. Therefore, the advertisement stated that it is inclusive of G.S.T. 8. However, only subsequently, a claim was made by the authorities under the G.S.T, demanding 5% of G.S.T in respect of its projects. As a matter of fact, by the order dated 04.10.2024, the Housing Board was directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,01,08,42,597/- which includes the current projects as well. Aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 4203 of 2025; Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the remaining Writ Petitions; Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned Standing Counsel (TNHB) for the respondents, who reiterated the above submissions in detail and also relied upon certain judgments. The arguments overlap. It suffices to mention that they reiterated the contentions mentioned above, in addition to making further submissions on the G.S.T. issue. 12. I have considered the rival submissions in detail. 13. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Housing Board that the non-joinder of the authorities under the G.S.T Act is fatal to the Writ Petition cannot be accepted. In this case, the decision to be made cannot in any manner determine the liability of TNHB to pay G.S.T to the authorities or otherwise, including the quantum, delay, or non-compliance with procedure, etc. The Writ Petition revolves around whether, after agreeing to a particular price and expressly mentioning it to be inclusive of G.S.T, the additional amount also claimed as G.S.T can be pursued by the Housing Board or not. In the li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent is as follows :- " 3. Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals.-The communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it." Therefore, at the relevant point in time, when it was expressly held out that there would be 6 + 7 residential towers only, it cannot be said that the allottees of the flat have acceded to or consented that the promoter is allowed to put any number of towers or to do away with the clubhouse and commercial facility." 16. Therefore, TNHB, being in a dominant position and not including any clause to the contrary, the contra proferentem rule is also applicable. In this regard, it is relevant to quote the following passage of the judgment of the Division Bench (in which I am one of the parties) in The General Manager (Contracts Cell), India Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. Jyothi Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner V.Surya in W.A.Nos.1728 and 1729 of 2022, by the order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt filed in page No.158 of the typed set of papers on behalf of TNHB) the advertised price includes the land cost at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per Sq.ft, totalling Rs. 62,26,000/-. Additionally, the project period interest for the land cost at a rate of 8.5% is also charged, totalling Rs. 7,93,815/-. Thus, the total land cost amounts to Rs. 70,19,815/-. (ii) The construction cost includes the construction and additional development cost at the rate of Rs. 4,113/- per Sq.ft., amounting to Rs. 64,89,761/-. Subsequently, since the Housing Board engages external contractors for building and construction, 18% GST is added, equating to Rs. 740/- per Sq.ft., totalling Rs. 11,68,157/-. Following this, interest on expenditure, 9% profit, and premium FSI cost are included, resulting in a total construction cost of Rs. 91,98,313/- and rounding off to Rs. 91,99,000/-. (iii) Thereafter, the car parking cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- was added, resulting in a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,63,69,000/-, which has been paid. Now, by calculating 5% on the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,63,69,000/-, another Rs. 8,18,450/- is demanded. Thus, it can be seen that if the Housing Board itself had car....