DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.372 of 2015
Date of institution: 27.07.2015 Date of decision : 14.03.2017
Rup Chand Bhardwaj resident of House No.715-A, MIG Super Phase-XI (Sector 65), Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
GMADA Mohali through its Estate Officer, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri G.S. Arshi, counsel for the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Rup Chand has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The Op invited sealed bids for allotment of 700 built up booths to be constructed in different sectors of Mohali and the last date for submission of the bids was 28.12.2011. The complainant submitted his bid of Rs.10,51,000/- for allotment of one booth (first floor) in sector 78, Mohali. The bid of the complainant was declared successful vide letter dated 25.01.2012. As per the conditions of the brochure, the complainant deposited 75% of the quoted amount with the OP on 17.04.2012. On this date, the service tax was not applicable on the bid price. However, the complainant received letter dated 29.04.2014 from the OP asking him to deposit Rs.32,476/- on account of service tax on the bid amount. The complainant deposited this amount under protest vide demand draft, receipt dated 27.06.2014 whereof was issued by the OP. The complainant arranged a copy of the notification dated 02.06.2014 from the office of the OP on the basis of which the demand of service tax was raised. However, the complainant found that the service tax was applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2012 whereas the complainant had deposited 75% amount on 17.04.2012 and the allotment letter was liable to be issued by the OP upto 01.05.2012. The complainant gave notice dated 31.12.2014 to the OP for refund of Rs.32,476/- with interest but the OP has not refunded this amount. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him Rs.32,476/- alongwith interest @ 18%; to pay him Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The complaint is contested by the OP by filing reply, in which it has been admitted that the service tax was not applicable on the bid price on the said date. The moment the bid was accepted and its acceptance was conveyed, the contract comes into existence and transaction is complete. The complainant is liable to pay the service tax being end beneficiary of transaction. The complainant is liable to pay the service tax as per terms of allotment letter. Terming the charging of service tax rightly and denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of letter of the OP Ex.C-1; letter of the OP Ex. C-2; payment receipt Ex.C-3; letter of the complainant to the OP Ex.C-4; letter of the OP Ex.C-5; brochure Ex.C-6; notice of the complainant to the OP Ex.C-7 and letter of the complainant to the OP Ex.C-8. In rebuttal, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajdeep Kaur, its Estate Officer Ex.OP-1/1.
5. It has been argued by the complainant that the OP had wrongly demanded and accepted the service tax from the complainant vide letter dated 29.04.2014. The service tax was applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2012 whereas the complainant has deposited the 75% payment of the booth on 17.04.2012.
6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the built up booth in a bid. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. City View Enterprises Vs. HUDA & Ors in Consumer Case No.202 of 2010 decided on 01.02.2016. Learned counsel for the OP has further argued that as informed to the complainant vide letter dated 29.04.2014 Ex.C-2 the service tax @ 3.09% has rightly been demanded by the OP. Thus, as per counsel for the OP, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint deserves dismissal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard their oral submissions. It is the own case of the complainant that he was allotted the built up booth in Sector 78 by the OP by accepting his bid. The Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. City View Enterprises Vs. HUDA & Ors (supra) while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration and Ors. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. 2009 CTJ 486 (SC) (CP) has held that the auction purchaser is not a consumer. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer and his complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.
8. Accordingly, in view of the aforementioned case law, without going into the merits of the complaint, the present complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainant alongwith all the requisite documents placed on record. Further complainant is also granted liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court for redressal of his grievances. A copy of the complaint be retained for office record.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 14.03.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
