BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.102 of 2016
Date of institution: 23.02.2016
Date of Decision: 24.06.2016
Sonika Sharma wife of Arun Kumar Sharma, resident of 4565 GF, MIG (S) Flats, Sector 70, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
Central (A Division of FLFL), CT- Mohali North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali Kharar Road, Mohali 1600118.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Tarun Gupta, counsel for the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) refund her the amount of VAT charged from her.
(b) pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for deficient services and harassment.
The case of the complainant is that she purchased 2 garments from the OP on 12.02.2016. The MRP of the garments were Rs.1799/- and Rs.699/- respectively. However, the OP had offered discount of 50% and 30% on the MRP of the garments. However, the OP after giving discount of 50% and 30% on the MRP also charged @ 6.05% due to which the complainant was charged Rs.953.92 and Rs.518.90 for these garments by the OP whereas the pre discount price of the garments was inclusive of MRP. Thus, the complainant has pleaded that charging of VAT on the price after discount is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed reply in which it took preliminary objections that the complainant has failed to prove on record a single document to show that the OP had charged tax on tax. The complainant has failed to point out any rules/regulations etc. which entitle the complainant to get discount on the VAT. On merits, it is pleaded that whenever the company comes out with any scheme viz. promotional sales or discount offerings, then MRP of each product as offered for sale under the scheme stands reduced to the Final Sales Value which means the selling price to the customer shall be the transaction value plus the applicable sales tax including VAT/CST instead of MRP. Therefore, for the sale pricing purposes, all products to be sold under the scheme during such promotional sales or discount offering, the Final Sales Value supersedes MRP. The VAT is also levied on the sale price. Thus, denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and bill Ex.C-1 and newspaper cutting Mark-A.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Nikhil Kumar its authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copy of resolution Ex.OP-1.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP.
6. The sale and purchase of two articles on discounted price of 50% and 30% on the MRP of the garments by the parties on 12.02.2016 vide Ex.C-1 is not disputed. The complainant has raised the dispute regarding charging of VAT @ 6.05%, total Rs.84.02 on both the articles on the discounted price as the said charges is not leviable since the MRP of the articles includes all taxes. The complainant in support of her contention relied upon the newspaper clipping highlighting an order of the DCF, UT Chandigarh wherein it was held that charging of VAT on discounted price inspite of mention on tag that MRP is inclusive of all taxes is against trade practice.
7. The OP, however, denied the unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant on the ground that the discount offerings on the MRP of each product reduces the final sales value and the taxes are thereafter applicable on the final sale value and not on the MRP but in any case that does not exceed the MRP. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP when the complainant has been sold two garments on discount of 50% and 30% on the MRP and charging of VAT on the discounted price.
8. In order to resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate to go through the contents of Ex.C-1 i.e. the retail invoice. The retail invoice clearly shows the maximum retail price of one garment as Rs.1799/-, 50% discount thereon is shown as Rs.899.50 and the chargeable amount is shown as Rs.953.92 and the VAT on the chargeable amount has been levied as Rs.54.42. The total sum of discounted price and VAT in any case does not exceed Rs. 1799/- the MRP shown for the first product. Similarly for the second product the MRP shown is Rs.699/- and after 30% discount the net amount charged is Rs.518.90, the VAT thereon charged is Rs.29.60. Thus the net sum plus VAT when clubbed together does not excess MRP of Rs.699/-. However, the detail so perused vide Ex.C-1 do not resolve the controversy of charging of additional VAT on the discounted price, when the MRP includes sale price of the products inclusive of all taxes. The complainant has failed to produce the price tag which is a primary evidence to show that the MRP is inclusive of all taxes. Thus, in the absence of price tag on record, the complainant is unable to prove the unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
9. In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 24, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
