2026-VIL-532-KAR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-532-KAR

VAT High Court Cases

Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Joint Development Agreement and Works Contract – In terms of JDA, the owner has agreed to convey or transfer to the developer or its nominees 65% of the undivided right, title and interest of the schedule property and the Developer as consideration has agreed to construct and deliver to the owners 35% of the salable super built-up area, together with 35% of the car parking spaces for the absolute use, benefit and ownership of the landowner - Whether a joint development agreement between a landowner and developer constitutes a Works Contract liable to tax under the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003 – HELD - A JDA between a landowner and a developer is held to be a composite arrangement involving both elements of transfer of immovable property and works contract. However, the construction activity undertaken by the developer constitutes a Works Contract only from the stage at which the developer enters into agreements with flat purchasers and not from the stage of the JDA itself. The construction undertaken by the developer in respect of the landowner's share under the Joint Development Agreement does not amount to a Works Contract as there is no monetary consideration involved and the transaction is in the nature of barter or exchange - The Supreme Court's decision in Larsen and Toubro Limited versus State of Karnataka makes it clear that the activity of construction undertaken by the developer would constitute a works contract only from the stage at which the developer enters into a contract with the flat purchaser, and only the value addition to the goods transferred after such stage can be subjected to tax by the State - Therefore, the JDA between the landowner and the developer is not taxable as a Works Contract under the Act, and only the subsequent transactions between the developer and flat purchasers can be taxed. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - Barter and Exchange versus Sale - Whether a transaction involving transfer of undivided share in land in exchange for constructed built-up area amounts to a sale within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the KVAT Act, 2003 – HELD - In a JDA where the landowner transfers an undivided share in land to the developer in exchange for a corresponding proportion of constructed built-up area, the transaction does not amount to a sale within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Act. The essential ingredients of a sale under the definition is the presence of price in the form of money or monetary value as consideration. The Supreme Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh has clarified that barter or exchange is distinct and different from a sale, and the consideration for a sale must be in the form of money or monetary payment. In the absence of monetary consideration and where the transaction involves exchange of one form of property for another form of property without monetary payment, the transaction partakes the character of barter or exchange. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that the cost of construction of the landowner's share constitutes consideration for transfer of undivided share in land cannot be accepted, and such transaction falls outside the definition of sale under the Act. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - State Legislative Competence and Transfer of Immovable Property - Whether the State Legislature has the competence to levy tax on transfer of immovable property in the context of a joint development agreement under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India – HELD - The State Legislature lacks the legislative competence under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to levy tax on the transfer of immovable property. However, the State is competent to levy sales tax on the sale of goods component in an agreement for sale of flats, which includes a deemed sale of goods in the execution of a works contract, provided the levy is confined to the value of the goods and does not extend to the transfer of immovable property. Since the subject matter of a JDA is primarily the transfer of immovable property, any levy of tax thereon would fall outside the legislative competence of the State - The Supreme Court's decision in Larsen and Toubro Limited clarifies that while Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution permits taxation of the sale of goods element in a works contract even after incorporation of goods, such taxation is permissible only to the extent of the value of goods involved in the execution of the works contract, and the levy cannot extend to the transfer of immovable property itself. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - Statutory Mechanism for Levy and Computation - Whether a Circular can prescribe the method for valuation and computation of taxable turnover in the absence of statutory machinery provisions in the Act or Rules – HELD - The Circular No.121/2009-10 dated 07.12.2009, insofar as it seeks to introduce a mechanism for valuation of undivided share in land and to include the value of land in the taxable turnover, lacks statutory backing and cannot override or supplement the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Kerala versus Larsen and Toubro Limited and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Private Limited versus State of Haryana have established that once a charging provision is provided under a statute, the machinery for its computation must also be provided under the statute itself. In the absence of any enabling provision under the Act or Rules prescribing the computation mechanism, a circular cannot introduce or prescribe such mechanism. Therefore, the Circular without statutory authority cannot be enforced and is not binding on assessees. In the absence of a statutory mechanism to determine the value of goods involved in the execution of works contract in the context of a JDA, the levy, to that extent, is unenforceable. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - Composition Scheme and Deduction of Land Value - Whether under the composition scheme any deductions beyond those expressly permitted under the statute can be allowed, particularly the deduction of land value from taxable turnover – HELD - Under the Composition Scheme, tax cannot be levied on elements attributable to transfer of immovable property. The Supreme Court's decision in Larsen and Toubro Limited clarifies that a works contract arises only from the stage at which the developer enters into a contract with the flat purchaser, and the levy is confined to the value addition to the goods transferred thereafter. Once it is held that the value of land is not liable to be included in the taxable turnover, the question of granting or denying deductions from the total turnover in the context of the composition scheme does not arise. Therefore, even under the composition scheme, tax cannot be levied on the value of land attributable to transfer of immovable property, and the statutory restrictions on permissible deductions apply only to the extent that land value has been wrongfully included in the taxable turnover. Since land value should be excluded from the turnover itself, the issue of deduction does not become relevant. This question of law is answered accordingly
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Recent Updates: GSTAT, EWB...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?