Date of filing       :01-06-2015

Date of order      :31-10-2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                            CC.134/15

                      Dated this, the 31^thday of October   2018

PRESENT:

SRI.ROY PAUL                                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR. P     : MEMBER

Muhammed Irfan ali.M.K Aged 28 Years                         :  Complainant

S/o Late A.K. Muhammed, Business,

R/at Thabsheera Manzil,Muttathody P.O,

Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.

(Adv: ShajidKammadam)

                                          And

1. Café Coffee Day,

H.P.C.L. KumblaPadoor fuel station,         : Respondent/Respondents

           Perward, Kumbla,

           Represented by its Manager.

2. Coffee Day Global Limited,

#23/2, VittalMallya road,

Banagalore-560001, Karanataka

Represented by its Authorized person.

           ( Adv:K. Ranjith for OP1 & 2)

                                                            O R D E R

SRI.ROY PAUL  : PRESIDENT

This complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act has been filed for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs 75000/- as compensation and with cost to the complainant. 

            The case of the complainant in brief:-

            The complaint with his family members visited the opposite party No. 1 shop on 07/05/2014 and ordered 14 items worth Rs 3069/- .  After having the said snacks and coffee he went to the counter of opposite party No 1 for payment.  But the opposite party illegally levied Rs 419 and Rs 151 also towards value added tax and service tax respectively.  When the complainant questioned the same he was insulted by opposite party No 1.  The levy of such taxes was quiet illegal and not in prescribed manner. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money.  Hence the complaint.

            The opposite parties entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version contending that the taxes levied from the complainant was as per the existing Laws and rules of Central and State Governments.  So the Central Government and State Government are necessary parties in the complainant.  Hence the complainant is bad for non jointer of necessary parties.  The opposite party company levied the value added tax @ 5% to item no 9 as per schedule 3 and @14.5% to other items as per schedule 5 of Kerala value added tax schedules.  The company is levying service tax as per the notification No: 3/13 dated 01/03/2013 of Government of India.  So the company levied the prescribed value added tax and service tax as per the law only.  There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

            On the basis of the rival contention in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice?
2. Relief and cost?

The evidence consists of the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant as Ext A1 and A2 only. 

Issue No: 1

      According the complainant levy of Rs. 419/- as value added tax and Rs. 151/- as service tax are illegal and not in prescribed manner.  Service tax was illegally levied on entire bill instead of stipulated 40%.  The defence case of the opposite party was that they have levied tax and service tax as per the law only.  If the complainant is agitating such taxes the Central Government and State Government are necessary parties in this proceeding.   So the complaint is bad for non jointed necessary parties.

      On perusal of the pleadings and documents produced before the Fora we hold that since the allegation levelled in the complaint were specifically denied by the opposite parties it is the duty of the complaint to prove such allegations with cogent and tangible evidence before the Fora.  The complainant even failed to enter the box for providing an opportunity to the opposite parties for the cross examination of him.  Apart to that the opposite party through their pleadings in the version specifically stated about the tax pattern on which they levied taxes from the complainant.  So we hold that the compliant has miserably failed to prove his case.  Hence the issue no 1 found against the complainant.  The complaint is devoid of merits.

      In the result complaints stands dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1-Bill.

A2- Form No.8 B, The Kerala Value added Tax Rules.

       Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent