Gopal Khandelwal vs. Chief Executive Officer

Held

The Court held that the Appellant is liable to pay GST, and the developer is entitled to demand it, irrespective of whether it was explicitly mentioned in the advertisement. The Appellant's objections regarding internal finishing were dismissed, as the Tribunal correctly found that this was the buyer's responsibility as per the agreement of sale, which stipulated that only the superstructure would be handed over. The electricity connection charge was also deemed appropriate as per the agreement. The Court found no merit in the Appellant's claim for interest for delayed possession. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to set aside the RERA's order regarding the adjustment of input tax credit to payable GST, finding that the dispute related to GST and input tax credit, and the developer was entitled to demand GST. The Court dismissed both appeals, finding no substantial question of law.

Facts

The Appellant, Gopal Khandelwal, was allotted shops in a retail complex by the Respondent, Nawa Raipur Development Authority (NRDA). The Appellant raised objections regarding GST not being mentioned in the advertisement, the promoter not undertaking flooring, tiles, putty, and painting, an allegedly excessive electricity connection charge, and sought interest for delayed possession. The RERA directed the NRDA to intimate the Appellant about payable GST, and upon clearance of GST, delayed fees at 9% plus surcharge, possession would be handed over. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that all charges and taxes were payable by the Appellant, internal finishing was the buyer's responsibility, and the electricity connection charge was appropriate. It modified the surcharge to 9% p.a. and set aside the RERA's order regarding input tax credit adjustment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellant is liable to pay GST on the allotted shops, and if so, whether the Respondent is entitled to demand it, considering it was not explicitly mentioned in the advertisement (Section 17 of the RERA Act, 2016 and relevant GST provisions). 2. Whether the Respondent is obligated to undertake internal finishing works like flooring, tiles, putty, and painting, or if this is the Appellant's responsibility as per the agreement (Terms of the Agreement of Sale). 3. Whether the electricity connection charge demanded by the Respondent is excessive, and if the Appellant is entitled to a reduced charge as per NRDA resolutions (Relevant clauses of the Agreement of Sale and NRDA resolutions). 4. Whether the Appellant is entitled to interest for the delay in handing over possession of the shops (Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016). Contentions: Appellant: Argued that GST was not mentioned in the advertisement, the promoter is responsible for internal finishing, the electricity connection charge is excessive, and he is entitled to interest for delayed possession. Relied on the RERA's initial order regarding GST intimation and delayed fees. Respondent: Contended that as per the agreement, all charges and taxes, including GST, are payable by the Appellant. The internal finishing is the buyer's responsibility. The electricity connection charge is as per the agreement, and the Appellant has raised unnecessary objections. The Tribunal's modification of the surcharge was accepted.