Prahitha Construction — GST on Transfer of Development Rights under JDA
Background
Prahitha Construction Pvt. Ltd., a commercial real estate developer, entered into a JDA dated 28.12.2017 with two landowners — M/s. Jitvan Land Limited and M/s. Janina Marine Properties Pvt. Ltd. — for development of land admeasuring 8.30 acres and 1.82 acres at Hyderabad Knowledge City, Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana into an IT/ITES and commercial office project. Under the JDA, the landowners granted permissive possession to the developer, who agreed to construct three towers. The developer was to receive the Developer's Undivided Share (UDS) of land and the built-up area as consideration, but only after handing over the Landowner's Share upon project completion. The JDA expressly stated that permissive possession shall not be construed as delivery of possession in part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner challenged Notification No. 4/2018 as amended by Notification No. 23/2019-CT(Rate) dated 30.09.2019, which imposed GST on transfer of development rights under a JDA, seeking its declaration as ultra vires Articles 14, 246A and 265 of the Constitution and the CGST/TGST Act, 2017.
Court Observations (Verbatim)
"Reading of the aforesaid clause further gives a clear picture of the fact that mere execution of JDA by itself would not mean that the right, title and ownership of the property or a portion of that property stands transferred in the name of the petitioner/developer. There are certain conditions/milestones/stages which have to be crossed before which the petitioner would be entitled to have a certain element of right over the completed constructed area which has been agreed to be left at the disposal of the petitioner. But that does not mean that mere execution of the JDA would amount to transfer of right to the petitioner."
"The transfer of development rights is hence a service under GST Law which the landowner is offering to the developer and that too for a consideration. Thus, the transfer of development rights is a service and not an outright sale of an immovable property."
"From plain reading of the JDA that was entered into between the two parties, what is apparently visible is that, there was no outright sale of land being effectuated and the JDA per se cannot be considered merely as a medium adopted by the landowner selling his land and the JDA does not lead to sale of land by itself."
"The transfer of ownership from the landowner goes directly to the purchaser of the constructed property and not in favour of the petitioner unless and until the land stands transferred in the name of the petitioner. The same cannot be brought within the ambit of sale. Transferring of the development rights does not result in transfer of ownership rights. That the sale of land/transfer of land or undivided share of land would get executed only after issuance of completion certificate of the project. This itself would give a clear indication that the services rendered by the petitioner in execution of JDA was supplied prior to the issuance of completion certificate and would thus be amenable to GST."
"On conjoint reading of the clauses under JDA, clause d of the JDA along with clause 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 6.1, 6.7 and 23.4...it will clearly indicate that there is no automatic transfer of ownership given to the petitioner at the time of execution of the JDA...In the absence of any cogent and substantial material to establish right, title and ownership being created in favour of the petitioner/developer, the transfer of development rights as it stands is amenable to GST and cannot be brought within the purview of Entry 5 of Schedule-III of the GST Act."
"The Notification No. 4 of 2018 dated 25.01.2018 as amended by Notification No. 23/2019-Central Tax (Rate), dated 30.09.2019, on its plain reading would reveal that it is not with which there is a charge created on the transfer of development rights, but in fact only provide for the time when the tax need to be paid."
"Taking into consideration the provisions of Article 246A of the Constitution of India and also considering the extraordinary powers which have been conferred upon the GST Council and upon whose recommendation the Government has issued the notification clarifying the aspect of transfer of development rights being attracted to GST/TGST, the challenge to the notification issued by the Government of India can be safely held to be devoid of merits."
Final Verdict
The Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court held that transfer of development rights under a JDA is a taxable supply of service under GST and does not amount to sale of land under Entry 5 of Schedule III of the CGST Act. The impugned Notification No. 23/2019-CT(Rate) dated 30.09.2019 was upheld as valid.
Case Laws Cited by the Court
| Case Name | Court | Date of Order |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balbir Singh Maini | Supreme Court of India | 4 October 2017 |
| Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Punjab | Supreme Court of India | 24 April 2008 |
| Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur | Supreme Court of India | 12 February 2013 |
| Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Bhopal | Supreme Court of India | 14 April 1977 |
| Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. | Supreme Court of India | 28 January 2016 |
| DLF Universal Ltd. v. Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana | Supreme Court of India | 19 November 2010 |
| Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi | Supreme Court of India | 16 December 2010 |
| Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi | Supreme Court of India | 6 April 2011 |
| Sadoday Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Charity Commissioner | Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench | 23 June 2011 |
| Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Union of India | Delhi High Court | Not verified |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy | Supreme Court of India | 24 March 2006 |
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty | Supreme Court of India | 19 March 1981 |
| Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. | Supreme Court of India | 20 August 2015 |
| Natural Resources Allocation, In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 | Supreme Court of India | 27 September 2012 |
| S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India | Supreme Court of India | 22 February 1967 |
| Sri Patrick Bernardinz D'Sa | Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka | 25 October 2018 |
Other Case Law
Sri Padmavathi Marketing v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Scope of Rule 86A – Whether ITC can be blocked for supplier when alleged wrongful availment is by recipient.
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice proposing blocking of I...
Read MoreSuncraft Energy Private Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.
forms under GST (Sections involved: Section 16(2) and Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
Facts The appellant availed Input Tax Credit on purchases made from a suppl...
Read MoreBarjinder Singh Kohli vs The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue & Ors.
Appeal – Sections 107(1), 107(4) & 107(6) of CGST Act, 2017 / WBGST Act, 2017 – requirement of pre-deposit when the order involves only interest and penalty without tax demand.
Facts:The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 15.05.2025 passed under...
Read More