Appeal No. 5 of 2023 and M.A. 19 of 2023, A. Priyadarshini v. K.S. Ramabadran
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal delivered its decision in Appeal No. 5 of 2023 and M.A. 19 of 2023 on 25 August 2023, concerning the Sri Lakshmi Varaha apartment project in Madipakkam, Chennai. The Tribunal found that the eight apartment project was exempt from registration with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority and rejected the allottee's claim for refund of Rs.2,12,438 paid as Goods and Services Tax.
What the appeal concerned
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal by A. Priyadarshini against K.S. Ramabadran, Managing Director of Sri Sudharshana Housing Private Limited. The appeal challenged the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's dismissal of Complaint No. 22 of 2022 on 10 November 2022.
The dispute concerned the Sri Lakshmi Varaha project at Madipakkam, Chennai. The appellant was one of eight apartment allottees and raised three issues:
- Whether the project required registration with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
- Whether Rs.2,12,438 collected as Goods and Services Tax should be refunded.
- Whether Rs.1,50,000 collected for covered car parking should be refunded because stilt parking was provided.
Project registration finding
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the two approved building plans covered a total project area of 493.61 square metres. It also found that the two pattas together showed 500 square metres, not 501.676 square metres as claimed by the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that only eight apartments had been constructed. Even if both developments were treated as one project, the Tribunal held that the project fell within the registration exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Registration with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority was therefore not required.
Goods and Services Tax claim
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal relied on a receipt dated 16 November 2021 produced by the appellant. The receipt showed that the promoter had remitted Rs.2,12,438 to the Government.
The Tribunal also noted that the parties had executed a registered construction agreement on 11 November 2021 and stated that payment of Goods and Services Tax by the promoter was mandatory. It rejected the refund claim against the promoter. The Tribunal stated that the appellant could approach the relevant Goods and Services Tax authorities if any refund was sought or if excess tax had been paid.
Car parking issue
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded that stilt car parking had been allotted and that it was provided under the building plan approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. It also noted that the appellant signed the registered construction agreement after inspecting the apartments and common amenities, including parking. The supplied text does not include the Tribunal's final conclusion on the Rs.1,50,000 parking refund claim.
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
Did the Tribunal require the Sri Lakshmi Varaha project to be registered with TNRERA?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the project covered 493.61 square metres under the approved plans and contained eight apartments, so it was exempt from registration.
Was the allottee granted a refund of the Goods and Services Tax amount?
No. The Tribunal rejected the claim for refund of Rs.2,12,438 from the promoter because the receipt showed that the amount had been remitted to the Government.
Where could the allottee seek a Goods and Services Tax refund?
The Tribunal stated that the allottee could approach the relevant Goods and Services Tax authorities for a refund, including where the promoter had paid an excess amount on the allottee's behalf.
Did the Tribunal order repayment of the covered car parking charge?
The supplied text does not contain the final conclusion on the Rs.1,50,000 parking claim. It records that stilt parking was approved in the building plan and that the allottee had inspected the common amenities before signing the construction agreement.
