Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
A.No. 106/2021, M/s. Alliance villas Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its order in Appeal Number 106 of 2021 on 18 March 2022, considering a promoter’s challenge to a refund, interest, compensation and costs awarded to a home buyer. The supplied extract records the dispute and the Tribunal’s analysis of the GST calculation, but ends before stating the final decision on the appeal.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal Number 106 of 2021 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal concerns a row villa booked in Alliance Humming Gardens Phase II at Thaiyur, Kelambakkam Post, OMR, Chennai District. M/s. Alliance villas Pvt. Ltd. was the promoter and Rajesh was the home buyer.
The parties entered into an undivided share land agreement and construction agreement on 23 February 2019. The home buyer paid a total of Rs.4,18,000 and later requested cancellation and a refund, referring to GST and other issues.
Earlier decision and promoter’s appeal
The Adjudicating Officer in C.C.P.No.189/2019 directed the promoter to:
- Refund Rs.4,18,000.
- Pay interest at 10.05%.
- Pay compensation of Rs.50,000.
- Pay litigation costs of Rs.25,000.
The promoter challenged that decision. It relied on clause 5(a) of the construction agreement, under which it claimed that the booking amount could be forfeited when a buyer cancelled or withdrew for reasons unrelated to promoter default. The promoter argued that Rs.4,18,000 was less than the stated booking amount of Rs.4,92,504, leaving nothing to refund.
GST issue considered
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined whether the promoter had charged GST at 12% or at nearly 19%, as found by the Adjudicating Officer.
Key points recorded in the extract include:
- The promoter stated that the unit cost before GST was Rs.49,71,984, GST at 12% was Rs.5,96,638, and the total was Rs.55,68,622.
- The promoter said the project was ongoing on 1 April 2019 and that it chose the old GST scheme of 12% with input tax credit.
- The government FAQ reproduced in the decision stated that promoters of ongoing projects could choose old rates with permissible input tax credit, and were expected to pass the credit benefit to buyers.
- The Adjudicating Officer had treated Rs.30,79,862 as the villa cost and Rs.5,95,144 as GST, leading to the finding that GST was nearly 19%.
Practical significance
Appeal Number 106 of 2021 is relevant to buyers and promoters dealing with cancellation clauses, booking amount forfeiture and explanations of GST calculations. The supplied text does not contain the Tribunal’s final ruling, so it does not establish whether the refund and other awards were ultimately confirmed or set aside.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
How much had the home buyer paid before cancelling the villa?
The home buyer had paid a total of Rs.4,18,000 on various dates.
What relief did the Adjudicating Officer award?
The Adjudicating Officer directed a refund of Rs.4,18,000 with interest at 10.05%, compensation of Rs.50,000 and litigation costs of Rs.25,000.
Why did the promoter say no refund was due?
The promoter relied on the construction agreement’s cancellation clause and argued that the amount paid was less than the booking amount of Rs.4,92,504, which it claimed could be forfeited.
Did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allow the appeal?
The supplied extract ends during the Tribunal’s GST analysis and does not state the final result of the appeal.
