D.o.F:21/02/2011

D.o.O:10/11/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.NO.238/11

                     Dated this, the 10th     day of November 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                   : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI             : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                : MEMBER

T.Abdul Khadar, S/o Kutti  Haji,

R/at  H.No. 17/330, Kulsu Manzil,                  : Complainant

Arangadi,Kanhangad.

(Adv.T.V.Vijayan,Hosdurg)

1.Joint Regional Transport Officer,

   R.T.O.Office,Kanhangad.

2. The District Collector,                                     : Opposite parties

   Civil Station,Kasaragod

                                               ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ     : PRESIDENT

    Heard the complaint.  The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties are demanding  vehicle tax to the  tune of  ` 7881+50  in respect of his vehicle KL 60A 1755 which was  formerly a transport vehicle later converted as non transport vehicle.  His further grievance is that in reply to his lawyer notice and to the information he gathered under RTI Act the amounts demanded is different.  Hence alleging deficiency in service the instance complaint is filed.

        On receipt of the complaint, we posted it for admission hearing.  The complainant appeared and heard.

  The issue in this matter is whether the demand of tax by a statutory authority amounts to consumer dispute or not?

    The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  in the case of  Consumer Unity and Trust Society Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in (1991)I CPR 241 has held as follows:

  “  Now we come to the important question whether 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 Religion Endowment, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar  of Shri Sheriar Mutt  that ‘’ a tax is the compulsory extraction of money by public authority for the public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment of service rendered. 

     In Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Trichur vs. State of  Kerala and Ors the Supreme Court after considering various decisions including the one cited above distinguished fee’ from ‘taxes’ in these  words:

   Fee is the amount paid for a privilege and not an obligation but the payment is voluntary.  Fees are distinguished from taxes in that the chief purpose of a tax is to raise funds for the support of the government or for a public purpose, while a fee may be charged for the privilege or benefit conferred, or service rendered or to meet the expenses connected there with.  Thus fees are nothing but payment for some special privilege granted or service rendered.

     The same principle has again been restated by the Supreme Court in its decision in Municipal Corporation  of the City of Baroda vs. Babubhai  Himatlal reported in judgment today.  The identical view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sreenivasa General Traders vs Andra Pradesh and others.   Where the  court observed this

  ‘’ The distinction between a tax and a fee has primarily  in the fact that a tax is levied as part of a common burden while a fee is for a payment of a specific benefit or  privilege although the special advantage is secondary to the primary motive of regulations in public interest.  If the element of revenue for general purpose of the state predominates the levy becomes a tax.

    In the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court 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 general purposes of government and it cannot be regarded as payment for any particular or special service.  While it is undoubtedly  true that the  government is a welfare state is under a duty to provide various forms of facilities to citizens and the expenditure incurred there on will have to be met from out of the consolidated funds of the state, it cannot be said that a tax levied for the  general purposes of the State countries consideration for any specific facility, benefits or service provided by the state.

  In the light of the above decision it is clear that even if the complainant pays tax demanded by the opposite parties even then  he could not file a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums  against them since the said payment does not amount to any consideration.  Hence the complaint is not a consumer as envisaged under the Act  and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.

        Hence the complaint is dismissed

Sd/                                                                                                  Sd/                                                              Sd/

MEMBER                                                                            MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

eva 

/Forwarded by Order/

Senior Superintendent