Whether Transfer of Development Rights Attracts Service Tax Under Finance Act, 1994? Delhi HC To Decide

The Delhi High Court began hearing a department’s appeal that brings into sharp focus a long-standing controversy in the real estate sector—whether the transfer of development rights under joint development agreements amounts to a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul issued notice in an appeal filed by the Service Tax Department challenging an order passed by the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The tribunal had earlier set aside a service tax demand of nearly ₹5 crore raised against a real estate developer. The High Court granted the developer two weeks’ time to place the relevant joint development agreements on record, after which the matter will be considered further. The controversy arises out of two joint development agreements executed by the developer with Splendor Landbase Limited and Advance India Projects Limited. Under these agreements, the landowners retained ownership of the land, while granting the developer exclusive rights to develop the property, market and sell the saleable units, and collect sale proceeds. In consideration of these rights, the developer received payments aggregating to approximately ₹34 crore between May 2011 and February 2013. During this period, certain payments made by the landowners to the developer were subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the amounts as fees for professional or technical services. However, the developer did not obtain registration under the service tax law and did not disclose these receipts in its service tax returns. The Service Tax Department initiated an investigation, alleging that compliance under the Income Tax Act could not substitute obligations under the Finance Act, 1994. According to the Department, the developer’s failure to register and disclose the receipts amounted to suppression of material facts, thereby justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act. On this basis, a show-cause notice was issued and, in 2020, a service tax demand of ₹4,99,98,586 was confirmed against the developer, along with interest and penalties. The developer challenged the demand before CESTAT, which allowed the appeal and quashed the entire demand on the ground of limitation. While deciding the issue, the tribunal observed that mere deduction of TDS under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act does not, by itself, determine the taxability of a transaction under service tax law. CESTAT emphasized that the nature of the transaction must be examined independently under the Finance Act, and taxability cannot be presumed solely on the basis of the TDS provision applied by the payer. Aggrieved by this ruling, the Service Tax Department approached the Delhi High Court. Appearing for the Service Tax Department, Senior Advocate Anurag Ojha argued that deduction of TDS under the Income Tax Act does not extinguish service tax liability arising from the transfer of development rights. He relied on Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines certain “declared services,” to contend that the transaction involved an intangible benefit. According to the Department, by allowing the developer to exploit the development potential of the land while the landowners refrained from exercising those rights, the landowners effectively agreed to an obligation “to refrain from doing an act.” Such an arrangement, it was argued, squarely falls within the scope of declared services under the Act. The Revenue further submitted that advances received towards transfer of development rights were not excluded from the definition of “service” under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act. It was contended that where the right to develop land for residential, commercial, or agricultural purposes is granted without transfer of land ownership, the consideration received under a joint development agreement becomes exigible to service tax. On limitation, the Department asserted that suppression was clearly established, as the developer neither obtained service tax registration nor disclosed the substantial receipts in its service tax returns, despite declaring the income under the Income Tax Act. Case Details Case Title: Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi South vs. Baakir Real Estate Private Limited Case No.: SERTA 1/2026 & CM APPL. 61/2026, CM APPL. 62/2026, CM APPL. 63/2026 Date: 05.01.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel Counsel For Respondent: None Click Here To Read Order Read More: International Gold Smuggling Racket: DRI Seizes Over Rs. 40 Crore Worth of Gold, Rs. 2.9 Crore Cash

Whether Transfer of Development Rights Attracts Service Tax Under Finance Act, 1994? Delhi HC To Decide

Membership Required

Most Popular

Pressure Relief Valves Used In Common Rail Fuel Injection Systems Classifiable As “Safety Or Relief Valves” Under Customs Tariff Item 8481 40 00: CESTAT

Chilli Seeds for Sowing Not ‘Spices’: CESTAT Rejects Customs Demand

Re-Import Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied Solely for Lack of ‘Marks and Numbers’ When Identity of Goods Is Proven: CESTAT

Mis-declaration of Imported Fabric Justifies Re-classification, Confiscation, Penalties: CESTAT

Pressure Relief Valves Used In Common Rail Fuel Injection Systems Classifiable As “Safety Or Relief Valves” Under Customs Tariff Item 8481 40 00: CESTAT

Chilli Seeds for Sowing Not ‘Spices’: CESTAT Rejects Customs Demand

Re-Import Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied Solely for Lack of ‘Marks and Numbers’ When Identity of Goods Is Proven: CESTAT

Whether Transfer of Development Rights Attracts Service Tax Under Finance Act, 1994? Delhi HC To Decide

Membership Required

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular