Date of Filing:05.10.2018  

                                                                                         Date of Order:20 -2-2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Sri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Sri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,   MEMBER

HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM.  (PGD (ADR)  MEMBER

                  On this the Wednesday, the 20^th     day of February , 2020

C.C.No.412 /2018

Between

Smt.G.Anita Reddy, W/o. G.Dharmender Reddy,

Aged 40 years, Occ: Home-maker,

R/o. H.No.8-3-229/D/1/24,

Sravanthi Nagar, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 033, Contact : 9346102529                ……Complainant.

And

1. Telangana State Regional Transport Office,

Rep.through its Joint Transport Commissioner,

Regional Transport Office,

Khairatabad,  Hydeerabad.

2. RKS Nexa Motors (P) Ltd.,

Jubilee Hills branch, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager.yderabad.                                 ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainants                  :    Party in person

Counsel for the opposite Party No.1        :    Rastrapal

Counsel for the opposite Party No.2        :    M/s.Gouri Sahnkera Rao.

O R D E R

(By.  Smt. CH. Lakshmi Prasanna,B.Sc. LLM (PGD ( ADR)., Member on                    

                                      behalf of   Bench)

1. The complaint is preferred under Sec.12 read with Sec.2(i)(r) unfair trade practice of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Parties for wrongfully collecting Registration Charges of Rs.20,000/- (in the name of registration of second vehicle) and Rs.37,199.80/- towards life tax @14% on the total sum of Rs.9,98,811/-which includes all applicable taxes, and seeking appropriate direction for refund of the excess amounts allegedly collected at the time of registration of her vehicle.

2)       The brief facts of the case are:-

1. The complainant, with the financial assistance from ICICI Bank, purchased a S-Cross Sedan Blue Maruti Car bearing Engine No.D13A5587229 and Chassis No.MA3FNEB1S0080637BJ from the showroom of Opposite Party No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.9,98,812/- vide invoice No.GST/JUB17000937 on 24/2/2018. Apparently, as against life tax on the invoice amount Rs.6,88,835.36/-, the Opposite Party No.2 collected an amount of Rs.1,22,995/- on Rs.9,98,812/-  vide Tax receipt No.NETO19507675 ( in the name of RTA, Opposite Party No.1) which include life tax of Rs.1,19,860/- Hire Purchase Agreement Fee Rs.1500/- + Temporary Registration Fee of Rs.300/- + Application Fees of Rs.600/- +Smart Card Fees of Rs.200/- + postal charges of Rs.35/- + Registration Service Charges of Rs.400/-. It is also averred by the complainant that an amount of Rs.20,000/- vide Challan No. HYDCZCC109/130042 dt.6/4/2018 was collected for registration @ 14% on the premise that the complainant is already a registered owner of another vehicle, although the complainant has transferred her previous vehicle No.AP09BJ6753 to one Kammari Naveen Kumar on 20/2/2018 i.e prior to the registration of the new vehicle. Thus, aggrieved by the excess amounts wrongfully collected towards life tax and registration charges and having served a legal notice dt. 19/7/2018 to the Opposite Parties with no response, the present petition is filed seeking redress.

While Opposite Party No.1 has not contested the matter, in their Written version, the main contention of the Opposite Party No.2 is that they are only facilitators in registration of the vehicle and no liability can be attached to O.P.No.2 as for merely collecting all applicable taxes on the purchased vehicle as they are paid to the RTA, Opposite no.1 with proper receipts thereof.

 4)     In the enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments in the complaint supporting his claim with 10 documents including the legal notice to the Opposite Parties objecting to the excess amounts collected towards tax and the copy of the relevant A.P. Ordinance No.2 of 2010.

5)    On the facts and material brought on record, and written arguments submitted by both the parties, the following points have emerged or consideration:

         1)  Whether the complainant could make out the case of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties?

         2) Whether the life tax and registration charges collected on the Complainant's vehicle is in excess of the stipulated/prescribed rate of taxes amounting to unfair trade practice u/Sec.2(i)(r)  of The Consumer Protection Act?

3)    Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim/compensation made in

       the complaint and to what relief?

6)       Point No.1:- The undisputed facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No.2 collected an amount of Rs.1,22,995/- on Rs.9,98,812/-  vide Tax receipt No.NETO19507675 ( in favour of RTA, Opposite Party No.1) which include life tax of Rs.1,19,860/- Hire Purchase Agreement Fee Rs.1500/- + Temporary Registration Fee of Rs.300/- + Application Fees of Rs.600/- +Smart Card Fees of Rs.200/- + postal charges of Rs.35/- + Registration Service Charges of Rs.400/-

The invoice cost of a product is the price that the dealer/seller pays to the manufacturer for the product before marking it up to sell. The net purchase cost of a product is the amount of the invoice plus any additional fees and taxes that are incurred. In the instant case, as per Ex A2, the actual invoice price of the vehicle is Rs.6,88,835.36/-.

In M/S.Millennium Infra And Reality vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others ( W.P.No.21183 of 2019 dt. 25/9/2019), the Telangana High Court categorically held that "State cannot be allowed to levy life tax on the ex-showroom price shown in the price list, when it is not the actual cost of the vehicle and the life tax has to be levied on the actual cost of the vehicle as paid by the purchaser of the vehicle which can be reflected from the invoice." 

Hence, the collection of an amount of Rs.37,199.80/- towards life tax @14% on the total sum-ex-show room price of Rs.9,98,811/-which includes all applicable taxes, is  illegally collected.

Secondly, an amount of Rs.20,000/- vide Challan No. HYDCZCC109/130042 dt.6/4/2018 was collected for registration @ 14% on the premise that the complainant is already a registered owner of another vehicle. As evident from Ex A7, the complainant has transferred her previous vehicle No.AP09BJ6753 to one Kammari Naveen Kumar on 20/2/2018 i.e prior to the date of registration of the new vehicle. As per A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act published in the VII th Schedule of the A.P. Gazette Part IV-B, Extraordinary No.2 dt.2/2/2010, no extra tax is chargeable on the second vehicle. Whether or not, it is adapted mutatis mutandis by the Telangana Government, the fact that the complainant has transferred her previous vehicle No.AP09BJ6753 to one Kammari Naveen Kumar on 20/2/2018 i.e prior to the date of registration of the new vehicle, is suffice to say that it does not attract any extra registration charges on that account.

In view of the foregoing, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

7)            Point No.2:- Now, the larger question as to whether statutory authorities, local bodies etc., are amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act has been subject matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has chosen to divide the function of a statutory authority into ordinary commercial activity and sovereign function and held that as distinct from sovereign function, if the statutory authority performs any ordinary commercial activity, services in respect of such commercial activity may relate to service in respect of which certainly the statutory authority is amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. Going by that decision, simply because the RTA is a statutory authority, all of its functions cannot be taken out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case, under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the RTA does have two kinds of functions, one, a sovereign function and the other, a function relating to services to the public. One of the sovereign functions relates to collection of tax including life tax. The functions relating to services are activities such as providing of roads and infrastructure to the public. While providing amenities to the public would constitute services, the function of levy of collection of taxes would squarely come within the sovereign functions of the statutory authority, which would be outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Again, in S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps (1996 AIR 839 1996 SCC (1) 573), the Supreme Court held that the authorities under the Registration Act and Stamp Act perform statutory duties that do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as The Registration Act as also the Stamp Act are meant primarily to augment the State revenue by prescribing the stamp duty on various categories of instruments or documents including payment of registration fee or fee for the inspection of various registers or documents kept in the Registrars or Sub-Registrars office etc. constitute another component of State revenue, and hence cannot be considered as services for under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (1991) ICPR 241, the question that arose for consideration of the National Commission was as to whether direct and indirect taxes paid to the State by a Citizen constitute 'consideration' for the services and facility provided to the citizen by the State. Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, the National Commission, in paragraphs 11 and 12 held as follows: “Now, we come to the important question whether the direct and indirect taxes paid to the State by a citizen constitute "consideration" for the services and facility provided to a citizen by the State. As pointed out by the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindro Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt that "a tax is the compulsory extraction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment of service rendered." In yet another decision, A.Srinivasa Murthy v. Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, reported in (1992) II CPJ 395, relying on an earlier decision of the Commission, it was held by the National Commission that payment of tax which goes into the general revenue of the State or local authority will not legally constitute payment of consideration for any specific service.

In the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court and National Commission in Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan (1991 (1) C.P.R. 241 : II (1991) CPJ 56), the legal position must now be taken to be well settled that unlike a "fee", a "tax" in its true nature is a levy made by the State for the general purposes of Government and it cannot be regarded as payment for any particular or special service. Putting in a nutshell, the payment of taxes cannot be regarded as consideration for service rendered by the Government and hence the complainant herein cannot be considered as a consumer of the Opposite Party. In view of the above discussion, the point No.2 & 3 are answered negative and the complaint is not maintainable.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no costs, however the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available in law.       

Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  20^th    day of  February, 2020

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                              WITNESS EXAMIND

                                                  Nil

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 – Copy of price lis  tw.e.f. 1..1.2018

Ex.A2 – Copy of Tax/Vehicle & Charges invoice dt.24.2.2018

Ex.A3 – Copy of  Tax receipt

Ex.A4 -  Temporary  Certificate of Registration

Ex.A5 – Copy of slot booking confirmation

Ex.A6 – Copy of  Tax invoice dt.6.4.2018

Ex.A7 – Old vehicle transfer details

Ex.A8 – Copy of Gazette collected  under RTI Act

Ex.A9 – Request to JTC for refund  of Excess collected Amount

Ex.A10 – Refund of Excess amount collected towards the registration of vehicle

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party  

MEMBER                          MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT