The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of D. Hamsa Sundaramoorthy & Ors. v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. [W.P. Nos. 33993 & Ors. of 2024 dated June 02, 2025] held that where the flat price was expressly advertised as “inclusive of GST”, Tamil Nadu Housing Board could not thereafter demand an additional 5% GST from the allottees.
Facts:
The Petitioners (“the Petitioners”), being allottees of flats developed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board (“the Respondent”) under real estate projects in Nandanam and Anna Nagar Divisions, Chennai, had paid the full flat cost as per the advertisement issued by TNHB, which clearly stated that the price was ₹9892/sq.ft., inclusive of GST.
Despite this, after handing over the keys and issuing the completion certificate in April 2024, the Respondent issued a letter dated August 16, 2024, demanding an additional 5% of the total sale consideration as GST from each allottee, along with belated interest if any, before execution of the sale deeds.
The Petitioners contended that TNHB was estopped from raising such additional demand, especially when the agreed sale consideration was expressly inclusive of GST, and such terms were neither clarified nor contradicted in any subsequent agreements or communications. The Respondent argued that the 5% GST component now demanded was applicable now as the same was omitted at the time of advertisement. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners approach the High Court.
Issue:
Whether the Tamil Nadu Housing Board can demand additional 5% GST on flats after having expressly advertised the flat price as inclusive of GST and receiving full consideration?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 33993, 34858, 25244, 24555, 24558, 24560, 24563, 24573, 25233 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the advertisement issued by TNHB clearly and unambiguously stated that the price was inclusive of GST and “nothing contrary” was indicated either in the allotment letter or in the standard-format agreement drafted by TNHB.
- Noted that, TNHB as a government real estate developer, was in a dominant position in drafting the terms of the agreement and had complete knowledge of the applicable tax regime. The prospective allottees were required to accept the agreement as-is, without negotiation.
- Held that, TNHB cannot retreat from its contractual promise or renegotiate the price after the purchaser has fulfilled their entire payment obligation based on the declared all-inclusive price.
- Noted that, the tax liability now sought to be collected is 5% of the sale consideration. Already, 9% of the sale consideration is added as profit; therefore, even if there is any GST that is left out, that will only reduce the profit of TNHB to 4%, and rejected the plea of public interest by the Respondents.
- Further directed TNHB to reconcile its own accounts and adjust GST payments from within the total amount already collected. If any interest or penalty was due for belated payment under the GST law, TNHB must bear the same independently and ordered refund of any additional 5% GST already paid by some Petitioners.
Our Comments:
The Court’s reasoning in this case draws substantially on principles of contract law and promissory estoppel. The advertisement clearly stating that the flat cost was “inclusive of GST” created a binding representation on which the homebuyers relied while making full payment. Since TNHB did not insert any express qualification in the agreement or allotment letter contradicting the advertisement, it cannot be permitted to alter its stand subsequently and demand more on account of tax.
In this regard, the Madras High Court relied upon its earlier ruling in Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association v. Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors. [W.A. No. 3328 of 2023, order dated April 8, 2024], where it was held: “At the relevant point in time, when it was expressly held out that there would be 6 + 7 residential towers only, it cannot be said that the allottees of the flat have acceded to or consented that the promoter is allowed to put any number of towers…”
The above precedent emphasizes that express representations made during the offer stage cannot later be diluted or contradicted, especially when the buyer has no meaningful opportunity to renegotiate or bargain.
Further, the High Court also relied on the decision in The General Manager (Contracts Cell), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Jyothi [W.A. Nos. 1728 & 1729 of 2022, order dated March 30, 2023], which applied the doctrine of contra proferentem: “Where the words of a document are ambiguous, they shall be construed against the party who prepared the document.”
In the present case, TNHB being the drafting authority of the advertisement, agreement, and all communications, must bear the consequences of any ambiguity or omission in setting out the correct tax structure. The petitioners cannot be made to pay for the misclassification or lapse in the pricing mechanism, especially when such errors fall squarely within the internal accounting and tax obligations of TNHB. The Court has balanced contractual equity with the public law character of the respondent entity.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
3. Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals:
“The communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
