Date of Filing: 30-03-2019
Date of Order: 07 -01-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM. (PGD (ADR), MEMBER
ON THIS THE TUESDAY THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
C.C.No.181/2019
Between
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Private Limited,
Sy. No.5/2 & 5/3, Opp: to Hitech City Railway Station (MMTS),
Izzat Nagar, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R .District, Hyderabad – 84,
Being represented by its GPA Holder Mr..Vijay Kumar, S/o. B.Ranga Rao,
Aged about 48 years, Occ :Manager – Legal of complainant Company.
,,,,,Complainant
And
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
Rep.by its Commissioner, GHMC Complex,
Liberty Circle, Liberty,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.Lotus Law Associates
Counsel for the opposite Party : Absent
O R D E R
(By. Smt. CH. Lakshmi Prasanna,B.Sc. LLM (PGD ( ADR)., Member on behalf of
Bench)
- The complaint was preferred under Sec.12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service and illegal practice on the part of the Opposite Party for refusing to give 5% discount on property tax payable under the early bird scheme announced in the month of April 2017, and hence seeking refund of the tax along with interest collected on the due amount.
- The brief facts of the case are:-
Opposite Party announced an Early Bird Scheme in April 2017 whereby the property tax payers will be given 5% rebate for current year's dues during that month. Intending to avail the discount as per the said Early BIrd Scheme, the Complainant Company paid an amount of Rs.36,14,704/- towards property tax w.r.t their Office building on 26/4/2017 duly credit to the account of the the Opposite Party, GHMC through online transaction vide Ref No.INB/550425148/CITRUC PAYMENT SOLUTIONS (CORPORATE) AXIS Bank. The Opposite Party credited back the said amount to the Complainant's account on 4/5/2017, for reasons best known to them. Again the complainant gave a cheque dt.5/5/2017 for the said amount of Rs.36,14,704/- and was encashed by the Opposite Party. However, the Opposite Party has not given the 5% discount, showing Rs.1,90,247/- as pending dues.Similarly, for the following years 2018 and 2019 also, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.36,14,705/- on vide vide cheques dated 25/4/2018 and12/3/2019 respectively, but the 5% discount was denied by the Opposite Party and again Rs.1,90,247 was shown as pending dues. Thus aggrieved by the said refusal of discount by the Opposite Party, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking refund of the discount amount of Rs.5,28,356/- collected for the three years with interest @12% p.a from 12/3/2019 till the date of realization and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards costs of litigation.
- While there is no representation on behalf of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed his Evidence Affidavit reiterating the facts with supporting documents Ex A1 to A10.
- Based on the oral submissions and written arguments filed by the complainant, the following points have emerged or consideration:
- Whether the complaint comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection act?
- Whether the complainant could make out the case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim/compensation made in the complaint and to what relief?
- Point No1 :- The preliminary question of maintainability is to be determined on two grounds viz, (1) whether the demand for tax, being a sovereign function comes within the purview of service and the complainant before the Forum is a consumer of the Corporation (2). The GHMC Act provides for a hierarchy of appellate and revisional authorities and therefore the jurisdiction of the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is impliedly excluded.
The larger question as to whether statutory authorities, local bodies etc., are amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act has been subject matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has chosen to divide the function of a statutory authority into ordinary commercial activity and sovereign function and held that as distinct from sovereign function, if the statutory authority performs any ordinary commercial activity, services in respect of such commercial activity may relate to service in respect of which certainly the statutory authority is amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act. Going by that decision, simply because the Municipal Corporation is a statutory authority, all of its functions cannot be taken out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case, under the GHMC Act, the Corporation does have two kinds of functions, one, a sovereign function and the other, a function relating to services to the public. One of the sovereign functions relates to collection of tax including property tax. The functions relating to services are activities such as providing of amenities to the public. While providing amenities to the public would constitute services, the function of levy of collection of taxes would squarely come within the sovereign functions of the statutory authority, which would be outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Again, in S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps (1996 AIR 839 1996 SCC (1) 573), the Supreme Court held that the authorities under the Registration Act and Stamp Act perform statutory duties that do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as The Registration Act as also the Stamp Act are meant primarily to augment the State revenue by prescribing the stamp duty on various categories of instruments or documents including payment of registration fee or fee for the inspection of various registers or documents kept in the Registrars or Sub-Registrars office etc. constitute another component of State revenue, and hence cannot be considered as services for under the Consumer Protection Act.
In the case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (1991) ICPR 241, the question that arose for consideration of the National Commission was as to whether direct and indirect taxes paid to the State by a Citizen constitute 'consideration' for the services and facility provided to the citizen by the State. Relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, the National Commission, in paragraphs 11 and 12 held as follows:
"Now, we come to the important question whether the direct and indirect taxes paid to the State by a citizen constitute "consideration" for the services and facility provided to a citizen by the State. As pointed out by the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindro Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt that "a tax is the compulsory extraction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment of service rendered."
In yet another decision, A.Srinivasa Murthy v. Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, reported in (1992) II CPJ 395, relying on an earlier decision of the Commission, it was held by the National Commission that payment of tax which goes into the general revenue of the State or local authority will not legally constitute payment of consideration for any specific service.
In the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court and National Commission in Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan (1991 (1) C.P.R. 241 : II (1991) CPJ 56), the legal position must now be taken to be well settled that unlike a "fee", a "tax" in its true nature is a levy made by the State for the general purposes of Government and it cannot be regarded as payment for any particular or special service. Putting in a nutshell, the payment of taxes cannot be regarded as consideration for service rendered by the Government and hence the complainant herein cannot be considered as a consumer of the Opposite Party.
In view of the above discussion, the point No.2 & 3 are answered negative and
the complaint is not maintainable and hence dismissed with no costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the 7th day January, 2020.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 - Copy of Proof of payment of property tax
Ex.A2 – Copy of statement showing refund of amount by opposite party
Ex.B3 – Copy of Proof of payment of property tax
Ex.A4 – Copy of Letter issued by Axis Bank
Ex.A5 – Copy of Proof of payment of property tax
Ex.A6 - Copy of representations given to opposite party
Ex.A7 – Copy of property tax payment
Ex.A8 - Copy of Receipt
Ex.A9 - Copy of Authorization letter to file complaint
Ex.A10 – Discount for early tax payment in GHMC
Ex.A11 - GHMC early bird scheme
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Nil
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
