ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complaint for directing to pay back the excess amount, compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarizedas follows: Complainant is a subscriber of opp.party vide chital No.69 in chitty No.50/07 for a sale of Rs.10 Lakhs and got prized thechitty. At the time of receiving the prize money the opp.party has illegally collected Rs.6129/- [Rs.5994/- towards service charge and 200 as documentation charge] from the complainant. Hence for getting the said amount complainant filed this complaint. Opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is a sub scriber in chitty No.50/07 chital No.69 with the opp.party having a sala of Rs.10,00,000/- and he got auctioned the chitty in favour of him. At the time of releasing prize money an amount of Rs.5994/- was deducted towards service fax and Rs.200/- towards documentation charges from the prize money and for that purpose receipts were also given to the complainant. As per introduction of the Finance Act, 2007 Cash Management Services are also included in the list of services which are liable to service tax and under the category of cash Management services, business chit funds are also included. The said Act, the opp.party is liable to pay service tax with effect from 1.6.07 @ 12.36% and presently the rate is reduced to 8.65% The provides of service is only an assessee according to Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 and he hasto collect service tax from the users of services as contemplated under Section 12 A and 12B of Central Excise Act, 1994. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 tp D4 are marked. POINTS: Complainant’s case is that the opp.party collected Rs.5,994/- towards service charge and Rs.200/- towards documentation charges illegally from the complainant at the time of receiving prize money. Complainant is support of his arguments also relied on the decision of Kerala Lokayukta in Complaint No.860/2008. In the said decision it is stated that collecting service tax from the subscribers of the chitties by the opp.party is illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel for the opp.party argued the above said point and produced Ext. D4 order of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in WP [c] 32208/09. In that order the order of the above mentioned complaint in the Kerala Lokayukta has been stayed. Hence we are not able to rely upon the decision produced by the complainant. According to opp.party they are collecting the service tax as per Sec. 65 of Finance Act 1994 and they have right to collect service tax from the subscribers as contemplated under Sec. 12A and 12B of Central Excise Act. The learned counsel for opp.party relied two decisions and Ext. D2 and D3. From Ext. D2, D3 provider of service has to collect service tax from users of service. As per Ext. D2 and D3 complainant has to pay service tax. With regard to documentation charges, the complainant during cross examination would depose that opp.party is entitled to recover documentation charges. By considering the entire evidence the opp.party has not committed any unfair trade practice of deficiency in service towards the complaint. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. G. Devarajan List of documents for the complainant P1. series – Receipts P2. - Variyola P3. – Subject to admissibility [paper cutting] List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1 – Satheesh Babu List of documents for the opp.party D1. Finance Act 2007 No validity of collecting Service Tax for Service Receivers by the Service Providers D2. – Copy of Judgement in 2006 [4] STR in Madras D3. – Copy of Judgement in 2006[4] STR 1998 D4. – Judgement in WP[C]No.32208/2009 | 
