The developer can only ask for VAT and Labour charges and all other charges are against the policy of AHP, 2013

 In the Matter of Sandhya Gupta V/s Adore real tech limited Complaint no. 849 of 2020 decided on 09.02.2021 before Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula.

Fact of the Matter.

Complainant booked a unit of the project being built under the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy,2013

In the Policy the Cost of Flat is fixed at the rate of Rs. 4000/- Per Sqft Carpet area and Rs. 500/- Per sq ft for the Balcony area.

At the Time to Possession the Builder demanded additional amount of rs. 1,67,073/- under the various heads of VAT,Labour Charges, Electricity Meter charges, Common area backup charges,Electricity Connection charges, Operation and Maintenance cost, Reimbursement of Electrical Infrastructure cost etc.

Ruling.

The Court held that , the developer can only ask for VAT and Labour charges and all other charges are against the policy of AHP, 2013.

If the tax amount is credited to the State Government in the name of the allottee the predominant role is of the allottee and for that the Promoter cannot be held responsible to refund the VAT payment.

  In the Matter of Ashutosh Suresh Bagh v/s. The Member & Adjudicating Officer & Ors. Complaint no. AT005000000000120 decided on 02.05.2018 before Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The Appellate Authority Held that 

"While deciding claims between the allottees and meeting with controversies, or the difficulties faced by the Promoter, a harmonious approach is imperative to be adopted. This is moreso the cumulative effect of the Statute coupled with Sections 71(3), 72, 38, Preamble and impetus of Section 18 of

RERA Ad is to be coherently considered. Going by these provisions and reading the order under challenge, it is apparent that refund of VAT could not be from the Promoter as the tax amount is credited to the State Government at the credit ,/ in the name of the allottee. Whatever would be the refund, would be available subject to termination of existing agreement between the parties and on an application to the concerned authorities by the allottees. In both these situations, the predominant role is of the allottee and for that the Promoter cannot be held responsible to refund the VAT payment. 

Statutory payments like stamp duty, VAT, service tax are to be deducted and flat purchaser is not entitled for the same

In the Matter of Bhoomi And Arcade Associates vs Alistair Gomes, Appeal No. AT 005000010880

Mumbai Rera Authority ordered the promoter to refund the entire amount of Rs.3,40,491/- expended by the complainant with regard to the ancillary expenses borne towards registration, stamp duty, processing fees, and finance company charge.

The Mumbai RERA Tribunal overruling the order of the Authority held that in the proposition settled in the case of Ashutosh Suresh Bagh v/s. The Member & Adjudicating Officer & Ors. and conjunctive reading of clauses 6 and 10 of the Agreement entered between the parties, it is clear that statutory payments like stamp duty, VAT, service tax are to be deducted and flat purchaser is not entitled for the same.