DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.740 of 2018

                                                Date of institution:  17.07.2018                                                  Date of decision   :  01.05.2019

Parveen Dangwal son of Lt. Shri Jayanand Dangwal, resident of House No.1133, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

Cantabil Retail India Limited, Shop No. Sec 83 Ground & First Floor, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab through its Manager or authorised representative.

                                                                 ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Samdish, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Shekhar Kamal, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                  Complainant purchased one product from OP on 27.11.2017 after paying price of Rs.75/-. That product was having MRP of Rs.89/- inclusive of all taxes. After discount of 20% given by OP, price of the product was Rs.71.20 N.P. However, GST of amount of Rs.3.56 N.P. charged extra, which is alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of the GST amount alongwith  compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- respectively.

2.             In reply submitted by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint has been filed for abusing process by concealing material facts. Besides, it is claimed that when a company offers discount on a product having MRP, then the company can charge GST over such amount derived after discount. All the advertisements and posters put forth by OP company specified the extra charging of GST. When the salesman at the shop refused to grant discount in excess of the allowed one, then the complainant got furious and that is why this complaint filed. Admittedly, after offering discount of 20%, price of the product was Rs.71.20 N.P. and by charging GST of Rs.3.56 N.P., an amount of Rs.74.76 N.P. charged and complainant paid Rs.75/-. No excess amount alleged to be charged. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.             Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and then closed evidence. On the other hand, authorised representative of OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Basant Goyal, authorised signatory and then closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Perusal of tag Ex.C-2 establishes that MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes, but perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that after offering discount of 20%, GST @ 5% of amount of Rs.3.56 N.P. charged for claiming total amount of Rs.74.76 N.P. Facts in this respect also admitted in the written reply filed by OP. Counsel for OP contends that GST chargeable extra on a product sold on discount. That submission of counsel for OP has no force because the tag Ex.C-2 shows that MRP is inclusive of all taxes.   Practice of charging tax on the discounted price having MRP inclusive of all taxes has been deprecated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh.  Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So practice of charging tax on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes in this case certainly is unfair trade practice.

6.             It is the specific case of complainant that he resisted in paying the GST amount after seeing the bill, but the OP forced to pay final bill amount and as such present is not a case in which payment of GST made by complainant voluntarily. Submission of counsel for OP to the contrary has no force.

7.             Though in relief clause, it is claimed that refund of Rs.2/- charged as GST should be ordered, but in fact contents of complaint and the supporting affidavit as well as above discussion establishes that amount of Rs.3.80 actually has been charged in excess because contents of invoice Ex.C-1 alongwith that of the written reply establishes that Rs.75/- was charged from complainant, despite the fact that the payable amount after discount was Rs.71.20 N.P. So refund of Rs.3.80 N.P. excess charged amount in this case ordered with interest from the date of purchase till payment. Complainant also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount. 

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.3.56 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 27.11.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OPs.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

May 01, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                               (Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member