IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 104/S/2017.             DATE OF FILING : 18.12.2017.          

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI SUBHABRATA CHAUDHURI,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN.

COMPLAINANT             : SUBHAM SARKAR,

  S/O Sri Sankar Sarkar,

  aged about 22 years,

  R/O. “Bina Bhawan”, Majumder Colony,

  Mahananda Para, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri – 734 001,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal.

O.Ps.              1.                       : GLENARY’S CAFÉ AND BAKERY,

   College Para, P.O. & P.S. Siliguri – 734 001,

   Dist- Darjeeling, West Bengal.

                                    2.                     : GLENARY’S BAKERY, RESTAURANT & PUB,

  Nehru Road, Chauk Bazaar,

  Darjeeling, West Bengal – 734 101.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

   F I N A L  O R D E R/J U D G E M E N T

Date : 29.08.2018

The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant Sri Subham Sarkar has visited the OP No.1 Glenary’s Cafe and Bakery situated at College Para under P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling on 26.11.2017 at 6-30 p.m. with one of his friends.  The OP No.2 is the main bakery being the mother concern of OP No.1.  The G.S.T. Number of OP No.1 is 19AAQFG6208A1ZH and after having the food while paying the bill complainant noticed that there is an overcharge of GST rates in that bill which was shown as 18 % (CGST 9% and SGST 9%).  It is contended that previously Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017 the rate of GST was fixed at 18% including CGST and SGST but subsequently the rates have been revised and from 15^th November, 2017 the rates of GST for all kinds of restaurants has been fixed at 5% only irrespective of the fact whether the restaurant is an air conditioned one or non air conditioned.  The bill of the complainant on that occasion was Rs.300/- only by adding the overcharged tax rate of 18%.  This matter as it is further contended in the complaint left the complainant in a state of shock that when the Central Government has revised the tax rate for easing the tax burden on the individual then being a reputed bakery’s branch the OP No.1 has showed a gross deficiency of services and started profiteering by the name of such taxes, hence this case.

In the petition of complaint the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.33/- as the realization of amount which was excessively charged as per old rates of GST as well as another sum of Rs.300/- has been claimed for cost of proceedings together with a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation as against mental agony totalling a sum of Rs.3,333/-.

The OP No.1 & OP No.2 both separately filed written version and both the OPs have stated that the contention of the petition of complaint is false as because no overcharging of CGST and SGST was done and prayed for dismissal of this case. 

Complainant in support of his case submitted before this Forum the computer generated impugned bill of OP No.1, Café and Bakery and the internet references with declaration of GST as 5% on restaurant whether AC or non AC.  Examination in chief has not been separately filed by the complainant while complainant on the date fixed for evidence submitted one application wherein prayer has been made for treating the original complaint as evidence of complainant and that prayer has been accepted by this Forum.  Examination-in-chief of OP Nos.1 & 2 as filed are with the record. 

From the documents with the record it is found that OP Nos.1 & 2 have been running the business of Glanary’s Bakery Items and that of Confectionery’s as per certificate of enlistment of the same issued respectively by Siliguri Municipal Corporation and Darjeeling Municipality.  Written Notes on arguments prior to oral arguments by both sides have been submitted in this case. 

Points for determination

1)       Is the case maintainable in its present form and nature?

2)       Is the case barred by limitation?

3)       Has there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

4)      Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reason

Point Nos.1 & 2

This case has been registered on 18.12.2017 and it is found that complainant on visit of OP No.1 Bakery took some food items on 26.11.2017 but while the bill was paid amounting Rs.300/- by the complainant then with the rates of GST complainant protested but that amount was taken by the OP No.1 Bakery.  As per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no doubt in it that complainant is a ‘consumer’.  The present case is not at all beyond territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  The bill in question which has been paid by the complainant and its date of payment shows clearly that within one month from the date of cause of action the instant case has been instituted.  So, no question of limitation do arise here.  In view of the circumstance, it is held that the above two points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Point Nos.3 & 4

These two points are taken up together for consideration as both are interlinked with each other.

Complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant complaining of unfair or restrictive trade practice, defects in goods, deficiency in service, excess charging of price and hazardous goods.  Here in this case, complainant has furnished the computer generated food bill dated 26.11.2017 as well as internet references declaring the rates of GST as 5% on restaurant whether AC or non AC to substantiate the case as filed.  It is found from the bill that total GST has been imposed as 18% calculating Rs.44/- on the food bill gross amount of Rs.254/- totalling a sum of Rs.300/- and this bill over the rate of GST has been challenged by the complainant and the OPs contended everywhere in this case that this is a right bill as paid by the complainant over consumption of foods.  In this context, we have gone through the internet print out over the issue of GST rate as furnished by the complainant and it is to be borne in mind that the rate of goods purchased by the complainant in its entirety was of Rs.254/- only.  It is pertinent to note here that in context of this case, the class and category of goods as well as at the same time the total value of the goods or services has been given by us the prime importance at the time of assessment of rate of GST.  Moreover, on going through the documents as furnished by the complainant we are of the considered view that 5% of GST would have to be imposed rightly on amount of Rs.254/- and in that case, there is no doubt in it that excess charge has been taken on the occasion from the complainant by the OP No.1 which denotes unfair trade practice and to that effect deficiency in service has been done upon the complainant and the complainant in this way has become the victim of sufferings of deficiency in service by the conduct of the OP No.1 and that of mental pain and agony too.  Accordingly, these two points are also decided in favour of the complainant. 

All the points are thus disposed of. 

Proper fees are paid.            

Hence, it is,

                     O R D E R E D

that the instant being Consumer Case No.104/S/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OPs with cost.

The complainant is entitled to refund the sum of Rs.33/- as against excessive charge in context of GST.

 The OPs along with that refund is directed to pay a sum of Rs.300/- as cost of litigation and a further sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant totaling a sum of Rs.2,333/- jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of this order.

Failing which the complainant is entitled to get simple interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.2,033/- from the date of this order till its full realization from the OPs. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to put the decree in execution.        

A copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost at once.