Fibota, Plot no. 944/1 Sector 3D GANDHINAGAR, India, Gandhinagar (2026)

Q: What is the address?

Plot No. 944/1 Sector 3D GANDHINAGAR, India

28/09/2021

(2)

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Smanvay Westfields V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the advertisement will trigger Penalty?

Yes, as per section 11(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority. If any promoter contravenes such Provision the under section 61 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Promoter shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent. of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.

Is there any remedy available to the Promote in case of minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the Advertisement?

As per Principle laid down by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/S Samnvay Westfields V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority – sleniency while levying Penalty is required to be shown in the case when there is no ulterior motive of Promoter to Breach the Provisions of Guj RERA Act.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

28/09/2021

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Smanvay Solitaire V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the advertisement will trigger Penalty?

Yes, as per section 11(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority. If any promoter contravenes such Provision the under section 61 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Promoter shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent. of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.

Is there any remedy available to the Promote in case of minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the Advertisement?

As per Principle laid down by sGujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/S Samnvay Solitaire V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority – leniency while levying Penalty is required to be shown in the case when there is no ulterior motive of Promoter to Breach the Provisions of Guj RERA Act.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

28/09/2021

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Smanvay Sampiya V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the advertisement will trigger Penalty?

Yes, as per section 11(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority. If any promoter contravenes such Provision the under section 61 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Promoter shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent. of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.

Is there any remedy available to the Promote in case of minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the Advertisement?

As per Principle laid down by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/S Samnvay Sampiya V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority – leniency while levying Penalty is required to be shown in the case when there is no ulterior motive of Promoter to Breach the Provisions of Guj RERA Act.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

28/09/2021

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Smanvay Sapphire V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the advertisement will trigger Penalty?

Yes, as per section 11(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority. If any promoter contravenes such Provision the under section 61 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Promoter shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent. of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.

Is there any remedy available to the Promote in case of minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the Advertisement?

As per Principle laid down by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/S Samnvay Sapphire V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority – leniency while levying Penalty is required to be shown in the case when there is no ulterior motive of Promoter to Breach the Provisions of Guj RERA Act.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

27/09/2021

Decision given by High Court of Rajasthan in case of H.R. Enterprises v. State of Rajasthan, Jaipur

Following Principle emerged from the decision

When all the documents such as Invoice, e-way bill, weigh slip are found to be correct then whether goods can be detained to verify genuineness of the transaction or to assess the eligibility of Input tax credit?

No – It has been held by High Court of Rajasthan in case of H.R. Enterprises v. State of Rajasthan, Jaipur that the incident or occasion of availing input tax credit is an event preceding the transaction in question and completely divorced from the movement/transit in question. Once the goods in question are in conformity with the documents of transit, the scope of inquiry under section 68 of the Act of 2017 by Anti Evasion Officer/Check Post Officer or flying squad ends. He cannot kick start an inquiry relating to the genuineness of purchase and corresponding input tax credit, which essentially relates to purchase of goods

Whether the Officer can directly charge penalty to the extent of 50% of the value of goods without proposing penalty under section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 i.e. penalty equal to the amount of tax?

No – It has been held by High Court of Rajasthan in case of H.R. Enterprises v. State of Rajasthan, Jaipur that – A perusal of the said notice issued in MOV-07 shows that the officer has jumped to propose penalty under clause (b) of section 129(1)(a) on the pretext that no-one has appeared for the owner of goods and proposed penalty as high as 50% of the value of goods. As against this, he was firstly required to propose penalty under clause (a) of section 129(1), which would have been equal to the amount of tax. Given that the penalty under clause (a) would have been Rs. 1,93,460/-and proposed penalty under clause (b) is Rs. 10,74,780/-, in the opinion of this Court, the statutory remedies will be inefficacious. Even, remedy relating to release of goods under section 129(1)(c) of the Act of 2017 would be illusory.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

22/09/2021

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Shri Ram Corporation V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the advertisement will trigger Penalty?

Yes, as per section 11(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority. If any promoter contravenes the relevant provisions of the Act, then under section 61 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Promoter shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent. of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.

Is there any remedy available to the Promote in case of minor mistake such as not mentioning GUJ RERA website in the Advertisement?

As per Principle laid down by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/S Shri Ram Corporation V. Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority – leniency while levying Penalty is required to be shown in the case when there is no ulterior motive of Promoter to Breach the Provisions of Guj RERA Act.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

22/09/2021

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Bhupatbhai Kalyanbhai Vekariya V. Shivdhara Heights, Surat & Chairperson and Members of Gujarat Real Estate Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

1. Whether GUJ RERA should give opportunity to the complainant seeking non-granting of RERA registration to a particular project on account of disputed ownership of Land?

Yes, as per the Principle laid down by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Bhupatbhai Kalyanbhai Vekariya V. Shivdhara Heights, Surat & Chairperson and Members of Gujarat Real Estate Authority – GUJ RERA shall give opportunity to the complainant. In fact, specific directions are given to GUJ RERA in the above mentioned wherein the complainant must get sufficient opportunity to present its case before GUJ RERA and accordingly registration should be granted within the Provisions of Law.

2. Whether GUJ RERA can pass order for Stay construction? Or Whether GUJ RERA can pass order when the case is pending before Civil court or criminal court?

No – GUJ RERA does not have authority to order for stay construction for any project, also GUJ RERA cannot pass order when the case is pending before civil court or criminal court, as per the Principle laid down by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Bhupatbhai Kalyanbhai Vekariya V. Shivdhara Heights, Surat & Chairperson and Members of Gujarat Real Estate Authority

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

22/09/2021

Decision given by Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar in case of M/s Sambhav Corporation V. The Secretary, Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether late filing of Project alteration plan will lead to penalty?

Yes – the intimation for Project alteration should be done on timely basis and within the relevant quarter.

Whether the promoter will be liable to penalty if the intimation of Project alteration is made after the due date of filing Quarterly Returns?

Yes – If the Promoter fails to provide quarterly up to date status of Project on Guj RERA Portal within time limit then it will be breach of Section 11(1)(e) of The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act 2016 and Rule 10(d) of Gujarat Real Estate (regulation and development) (Matters relating to Real Estate Regulatory Authority) Rules – 2016 and Order 5 of Guj Rera dated 15/01/2018. In case of M/s Sambhav Corporation V. The Secretary, Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority Guj RERA has passed order to pay penalty of Rs 50,000/- for breach of such provisions and Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Authority

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Accounts Outsourcing Services at Standardised RatesIncome Tax Return and TDS Return filing ServicesGST Compliance ServicesResearched Case Laws and Data Analysis ServicesPresentation and Preparation of Financials Statements, MIS, Company Profile etcBusiness Registration Services

22/09/2021

Decision given by Supreme Court of India in case of The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others V/s M/s Commercial Steel Limited dated 03-09-2021 – Section 107 and Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017

The respondent is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of iron and steel.

The respondent purchased certain goods from a dealer, JSW Steel Limited, Vidyanagar, Karnataka, under a tax invoice dated 11 December 2019. While the conveyance was proceeding from the State of Karnataka, it was intercepted on 12 December 2019 at Jeedimetala. The tax invoice indicated that the goods were earmarked for delivery at Balanagar, Telangana.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

study the latest news and updates on Supreme court, Supreme court information at Business Standard. The Supreme Court of the India is the main court in the federal judiciary of the India.

22/09/2021

Decision given by High Court of Telangana in case of Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Limited V. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax dated June 2, 2021

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether expiry of e-way bill may lead to detention of Goods?

According to the Principle laid down by High Court of Telangana – On account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill – no presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Get all latest & breaking news on Service Tax, Income Tax Advisory Service, Income Tax Litigation Services. Watch videos, top stories and articles on Service Tax at fibota.com

22/09/2021

Decision given by High Court of Telangana in case of Vijay Metal V. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Following Principle emerged from the decision

Whether one conveyance or goods vehicle can load goods for Two different destination?

Yes – It has been held in the given case that a conveyance can load goods for more than one destination and there is no restriction for such kind of Practice. However, the goods loaded should be supported by the required documents as Prescribed under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 for each such consignment. Else, the goods will be liable to be detained.

Whether it is necessary to unload the goods at the location coming first in the course of transportation? If the goods are not unloaded at the location coming first in the course of transportation – is liable to be detained?

No – The is no such rule Prescribed in the GST Law. Hence, there may be various transaction of such nature for the sake of convenience across industry and the same shall not liable to be detained under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 or the relevant rules.

Check out the precise summary of the case by clicking on the below link.

Commercial Tax Department Latest Breaking News, Pictures, Videos, and Special Reports from Fibota. Decision given by High Court of Telangana in case of Vijay Metal V. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Fibota

28/09/2021

28/09/2021

28/09/2021

28/09/2021

27/09/2021

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category