New Housing Policy approved by Cabinet

The Cabinet today approved a new housing policy on affordable housing to weaker sections. The new policy, Housing and Urban development cleared in meeting.

One of the official spokesperson said that the policy would also focus on rationalizing norms for housing projects and spell out procedure for the same. It would ensure uniform buildings rules, incentives for construction of affordable houses/ green buildings and the timeline for approval of projects. It also emphasis on the need to evolve a mechanism by including ‘’land pooling’’ and making landowners partners in development to avoid delays in land acquisition. The Cabinet approved the transfer of 100 hectares of land to the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) free of cost. This will give a major thrust to the agriculture diversification programme. The endeavor will also help develop new hybrid and high-yielding varieties of maize. The Cabinet decided that vacant land of the Irrigation Department is transferred to the Housing and Urban Development Department for optimum utilization. The revenue generated from it will be used for strengthening, revamping and creating infrastructure in the Irrigation Department.

To mop up additional revenue the Cabinet gave approval to levying stamp duty at the rate of 2% on the power of attorney given for sale/transfer of land to non-family of land to non-family transferees.

The Cabinet has also amended in building rules, more covered areas especially in case of residential development have been allowed. Ground coverage for flats has been reduced to 30%to ensure vertical development and to maximize open spaces on the ground floor. Similarly the ground coveragefor industry buildings have been enhanced. The government to mitigate the hardship being faced by developers and clients regarding allotment of plots and approval of projects decided to set up regulatory body which will be settling the disputes. License renewal fee has been reduced to 50% or Rs 10,000% which ever is less.

*Source : Accommodation Times. 

One more hurdle for the builders to climb

By Accommodation Times Bureau
By Nimisha Gupta

With all the clearance formality already in existence, the all new and pending projects will now
has to go under one more clearance test.i.e environment clearance.

The SEAC 1(state level appraisal committee ) that has already approved the projects in overall
Maharashtra with 554 projects, the new formed SEAC 2 only for MMR(Mumbai metro region)
will mainly look after the Mumbai region. Our honorable CM Mr. Prithviraj Chauhan with
consent of minister of state (independent charge) for environment and forests Mr. Jayanthi
Natrajan proposed the the ideas of having to committee to regulate.

The new formed SEAC 2 will have members from IIT sectors, retired BMC officials, MHADA
officials and the deputy secretary which will on the direction from the central government nod
there head for projects with the built-up area above 20,000sqft. There are many construction
in the pipeline in regions of Thane, Raigad and Mumbai –suburbs that accords the clearance
certificates from the committee.

Some of the factors that will be considered while appraising the construction projects are total
built-up area, energy conservation measure, water requirement, rain water harvesting, green
area , sewage treatment plant, solid waste management and environment management plan.

SEVAGIRI REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS ,

By Accommodation Times Bureau
Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.

The submission of the appellant is that this activity is part of the sale transaction and it is not part of any construction services. The counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of GMK Concrete Mixing (P.) Ltd. v. CST [Final Order No. ST/591/2011 (PB), dated 4-11-2011]. He also submits that the same issue was decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [STRP No. 124 of 2011(Tax) and STRP Nos. 146-156 of 2011, dtd. 25.08.11.] The submission of the counsel is that since the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and a High Court, the matter may be decided without pre-deposit and the appeal itself may be decided on the basis of above decisions.

CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH

Ultratech Concrete

v.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/476 of 2012-CUs

STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/714 OF 2012-cus

STAY APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2012

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2012

JUNE 12, 2012

ORDER

Mathew John, Technical Member – Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.

2. The submission of the appellant is that this activity is part of the sale transaction and it is not part of any construction services. The counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of GMK Concrete Mixing (P.) Ltd. v. CST [Final Order No. ST/591/2011 (PB), dated 4-11-2011]. He also submits that the same issue was decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [STRP No. 124 of 2011(Tax) and STRP Nos. 146-156 of 2011, dtd. 25.08.11.] The submission of the counsel is that since the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and a High Court, the matter may be decided without pre-deposit and the appeal itself may be decided on the basis of above decisions.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that though the matter appears to be covered by above two decisions, only stay petition may be allowed and Revenue may be given time to see whether there is any difference between the case already decided and this case.

4. Considered arguments of both the sides and we have studied the decisions and facts of the cases and we find that the facts are identical and there is nothing more to be decided in this appeal. Therefore after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we have taken up the appeal itself and we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.