This is a complainant’s appeal filed under Section 15 of C.P. Act, 1986.

2.    The complainant’s consumer complaint filed by the complainant for refund of road tax of Rs. 12,354/-, compensation of Rs. 2 lacs and costs of Rs. 2000/- came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 20/01/15 for want of jurisdiction, relying on the case of Payyannur Municipality vs. Prof. M.G. Mary, 2009, 1 CPR 2011, decided by the Kerala State Commission.

3. The facts would show that the complainant purchased on 30/12/13 a Ford Fiesta Classic for a sum of Rs. 6,37,660/- inclusive of  VAT  of  Rs.  70,851/-  at  the  rate of 12.5%. The complainant then approached

the Directorate of Road Transport i.e. the Respondents, requesting that the road tax should be charged on the cost price of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 5,66,809/- and not on the sale price  i.e. Rs. 6,37,660/- which is inclusive of VAT. 

4.     The complainant’s plea appears to have fallen on deaf ears, as according to the Directorate of Transport (O.P), road tax is to be paid on the “cost of the vehicle” and “cost of the vehicle” includes “basic manufacturing cost, excise duty and sales tax” as per The Goa M.V. Tax (Amendment) Act, 2000.  The complainant therefore paid road tax of Rs. 57,389/- at the rate of 9% of the “cost of vehicle” as required by the Goa Motor Vehicles Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013.  9% of road tax is payable on the cost of the vehicle where the cost of vehicle exceeds Rs. 6 lacs but does not exceeds Rs. 10 lacs. 

5.     The complainant then filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 12,354/- on the allegation that he was liable to pay road tax only of Rs. 45,345/-. 

6.     We have heard the complainant in person at the stage of admission. 

7.   The complainant would submit that the complainant was required by the Directorate of Transport to pay tax on tax when he was required to pay Rs. 57,389/- instead of Rs. 45,345/- on the sale price of the vehicle which included VAT of Rs. 70,851/-. Complainant would submit that road tax ought to be charged before the vehicle is delivered as final invoicing is done at the time of delivery of the vehicle and as VAT is the last point of tax.  The complainant would submit that in the case at hand “three times taxation issue arises” i.e. first VAT is charged on the cost of the vehicle; then road tax is charged on the vehicle and then again road tax is charged on VAT.  Relying on Tata Consultancy Services vs. The  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  the complainant would submit that

charging of road tax on the sale price of the vehicle inclusive of VAT would amount of double taxation and as such it ought to be stuck down.  Complainant has also placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in the case of GDA vs. Dr. N.K. Gupta (order dated 18/9/2002 in RP No. 2244/1999). 

8.     We are not impressed with the submission of the complainant.  We find that the complainant is before a wrong forum. 

9.     The case of Dr. N.K. Gupta (supra) was a case of refund of the amount paid of Rs. 3,95,000/- on account of non availability of the flat with interest by way of compensation of Rs. 46,711/-.  In making the said payment, the Ghaziabad Development Authority had deducted TDS of Rs. 8,656/- on Rs. 46,711/- under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act and as such the Hon. National Commission held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority was clearly wrong in deducting the TDS from the interest payable to the said complainant.  This decision has no application at all to the facts of the case.

10.     We say that the complainant is before a wrong Forum because before a person approaches a Forum under the C.P. Act, 1986, he has to qualify himself to be a consumer, an expression which has been defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) or (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and further explained in the explanation below it and the OP have got to be either traders or service providers.  The complainant in this case has not bought any goods for consideration from the OP nor has hired or availed of any services from them for consideration.  Complainant has only paid road tax as required under the Goa Motor Vehicle Tax (Amendment), Act 2013.  There is no contractual relationship between the complainant,  on  one hand, and the OP i.e.

the Directorate of Transport, on the other hand, in as much as the OP has also not provided any service to the complainant for consideration but have only collected the road tax as required under the said Goa Motor Vehicles Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013 and as such there could not be any case of deficiency in service within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act.  The issue is no longer res integra.  The Kerala High Court in Thrissur Municipal Corporation vs. Ummer Koya Haji, 2006(3) KLT 897 after taking note of several decisions came to the conclusion that :

“17. I am in complete agreement with the conclusions arrived at in the above said decisions as also the reasoning contained therein.  While local bodies do certain acts as services rendered for payment of fee in respect of which there is quid pro quo coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, in respect of the sovereign functions exercised by the local bodies by way of collection of taxes like property tax, profession tax and other taxes, it cannot be said that the local bodies are rendering any services, in respect of which the tax payer can maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, in respect of payment of property tax, no complaint would lie before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or Commission.”

11.     The Kerala State Commission in Payyannur Municipality, supra, held that “Tax is a levy which is without quid pro quo” and, therefore, held that the Forum lacked jurisdiction.  Likewise, in S.P. Goel vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi (1986-96 Consumer 3034) it has been held that a person who presents a document for registration and pays stamp duty on it, or the registration fee, does not become a consumer.

12.     The complainant in this case has not bought any goods nor availed of any services for consideration from the Directorate of Transport (OP) and as such is not qualified to be a consumer.  Only consumers can approach the Fora set up under the C.P. Act, 1986.    

13.     The impugned order cannot be faulted.  The complainant is free to seek his remedy elsewhere, in case there is double taxation.

14.    We, therefore, find there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed, and considering the facts, with no order as to costs.