Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/490/2015

Hitesh Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nikunj Dhawan

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/490/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	31/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	18/01/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Hitesh Jindal, resident of House No.1441-A, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

 

…............ Complainant.

Vs

 

Lifestyle International Pvt. Limited, Elante Mall, Plot No.178, 178A, Industrial & Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

….......... Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Nikunj Dhawan, Advocate.
For OP	:	None

 

PER SURjeet kaur, presiding MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant had purchased a Garment from the Opposite Party under flat 50% sale offer. It has been averred that the MRP of the said Garment was Rs.1699/- which was inclusive of all taxes. It has been alleged that after giving 50% discount the Opposite Party had charged Rs.892/- from the Complainant and had also charged Rs.42/- as VAT on Rs.1699/- which was already inclusive of all taxes. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that as per terms & conditions of the offer, the percentage of discount was applicable only on the maximum retail price (MRP) of the merchandise and VAT on the same was to be charged extra from the customer. Hence, the same was charged on the discounted selling price of the merchandise sold i.e. at Rs.1699/- (50% of Rs.849.52). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that he was charged extra VAT for the Garment with MRP of Rs.1699/- after giving a flat discount of 50%. The stand taken by Opposite Party is that VAT is rightly calculated and charged on the sale of the disputed item. Pertinently, it is not the case of the Opposite Party that the amount of VAT charged has been deposited with the respective taxation authorities. At any rate, there is nothing on record to show that the VAT charged from the customers is deposited with the respective taxation authorities. Furthermore, the Opposite Party has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/instructions authorizing it to levy/charge the amount of VAT in question from the gullible consumers. 

 

8.      In this backdrop, the core question which survives for determination is whether the MRP includes all taxes including VAT and whether after discount VAT can be charged or not?   

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Meaning thereby that MRP includes VAT and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged if VAT is included in MRP. 

 

10.      At any rate, if the Opposite Party has offered discount of 50% for an article purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then it (OP) is bound to sell the article(s) after discount. Though Opposite Party had offered 50% discount on the article in question, still it charged 5% extra VAT on discounted price inspite of specific mention on the tag MRP inclusive of all taxes. When, once it is mentioned as MRP with inclusive of all taxes, charging of 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 3723 of 2011, titled as “The Branch Manager, M/s Shirt Palace Branch, Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C.”, decided on 16.01.2014.

 

11.      A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. The ratio of the aforecited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

12.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

 

[a]  To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.42/-to the Complainant     

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-. 

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th January, 2016                                            

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER