| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 19.2.2018 Decided on: 1.8.2018 Gagandeep Singh age 26 years S/o Anil Kumar R/o House No.2269, Sector-23C, Chandigarh160023. …………...Complainant Versus Cantabil Retail India Limited (Patiala) Shop No.10, Badunagar Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Manager or authorized representative. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member ARGUED BY: None for the complainant. Sh.Shekhar Kamal,Advocate, counsel for the OP. ORDER SH. KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER 1.Brief, facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one product from the OP i.e. Cantabil Retail India Limited(Patiala), on 13.8.2017, on discount @40% , given by the OP. The M.R.P. of the said product is Rs.249/- which is inclusive of all taxes. After giving discount @ 40% , on the M.R.P. of the purchased product, the payable price came to Rs.149.40, which is inclusive of all taxes, but in addition thereto, the OP charged GST @ 5% (State GST 2.5%, which came to Rs.3.74 and Central GST 2.5%, which came to Rs.3.74), on the discounted price of the product, which came to Rs.7.48. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.157/-(round off) as consideration amount of the purchased item. The complainant resisted for the said act of the OP but it did not listen to the complainant and he paid the said amount. In this way, the OP defrauded the complainant by charging tax from the complainant illegally, which caused mental and physical agony alongwith extra financial burden on the complainant. It is prayed that the OP may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.45000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15000/-. Hence this complaint. 2.On notice, the OP appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply, taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is nothing but just an abuse of judicial process. As per GST department and its rules and regulations, “a company cannot charge GST over and above MRP, but if a company offers any discount, then the company can charge GST over such amount derived after discount”. Therefore, it is GST department which permits that the OP can charge tax over the discounted amount. Moreover, all the advertisements and posters etc. of the OP company states that “GST extra”. Therefore, the OP is not doing any illegal act, which is against law. On merits, it is denied that after giving 40% discount on the price of the product, the price came to Rs.149.40, which is inclusive of all taxes but in addition thereto, the OP charged GST @5% (State GST 2.5% and Central GST 2.5 which came to Rs.3.74 respectively, on the discounted price of the product, amounting to Rs.7.48 and complainant had to pay Rs.157/- for the consideration amount of the said product. It is pleaded that since no excess amount has been charged by the OP so no question of its refund arises. It is denied that the OP defrauded the complainant. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - In order to prove the case of the complainant, his ld. counsel tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, retail invoice, Ex.C1, original price tag, Ex.C 2 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Basant Goyal, Authorized Signatory of OP alongwith copy of resolution,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- During arguments the contentions of ld. counsel for OP were similar to its pleadings as taken in the written reply, so it is no need to reiterate the same. From the tag,C2, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the purchased product is Rs.249/-(inclusive of all taxes). On the retail invoice,Ex.C1, issued by the OP, the M.R.P. of the purchased product has also been mentioned as Rs.249/-. After giving discount of Rs.99.60, the taxable amount has been mentioned as Rs.149.40. However, the OP after adding CGST of Rs.3.74 and SGST of Rs. 3.74, on this amount has raised the bill for Rs.157/ -. It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.
- Since the OP has charged CGST & SGST on the discounted price of the product, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, therefore, it has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to unfair trade practice. Resultantly, we allow the complaint against the OP with a direction to it to refund the amount charged extra from the complainant and also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. The O.P. is further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
- DATED:1.8.2018
-
| |
