BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 08/2004 Filed on 07.01.2004<br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> S. Jayanthi, T.C 8/674(2), T.V.R.A 55, Thirumala P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 6.<br /> Opposite party:<br /> Managing Director, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Koottukaran Complex, Karamana P.O, Killippalam, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv. K.L.Narasimhan)<br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 28.04.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 12.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had purchased a Maruti 800 Euro II car on 24.05.2003 from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 226677.73 which includes the additional sales tax of Rs. 3223.31 also. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that there is no additional sales tax for motor vehicles for the period from 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003. So the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party for refund of Rs. 3223.31 for which the complainant received a reply stating that the amount collected as AST during the period from 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003 has been validated by the Government to remit it to the Department and the case filed by the opposite party before the High Court against the same is pending. Later on 04.09.2003, the complainant received a letter on behalf of the opposite party admitting the averments mentioned in the complainant’s lawyer’s notice, but they have informed their inability to refund the same. Hence this complaint has been enunciated against the opposite party. <br /> <br /> The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased a Maruti 800 Euro II car on 24.05.2003 and at the time of purchase an additional sales tax of Rs. 3223.01 was also collected from him. The challenge by the opposite party against the recovery of additional sales tax, after its abolition, and collected from customers from 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003 was turned by the Hon’ble Court in W.P(C) No. 24506/2003 dated 18.08.2003. The money collected by way of additional sales tax was remitted to government by opposite on 01.08.2003. The Hon’ble Court has laid down that in such cases, the purchasers can claim refund of tax, under rule 31 of the Kerala Government Sale Tax Rules by filing declaration in Form No. 40. In this case also the complainant can resort to the procedure stated above and claim refund of additional sales tax of Rs. 3223.01. On 04.09.2003 the counsel of the complainant was informed about the circumstance under which the additional sale tax was collected and its remittance under Sec. 3 of the Sales Tax Amendment Act. The opposite party having remitted the additional sales tax collected to Government Treasury, the complainant could seek for refund under the provision of the Sales Tax Act/Rules only. The opposite party is not liable for the claim made. The claim is made without adverting to Sec. 3 of the Kerala Government Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act 2003 which validates the collection of additional sales tax from 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003 and required the dealers to remit the tax so collected to the Government. The action of the opposite party is strictly in accordance with law only. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost. <br /> <br /> Both parties have adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked on the part of the complainant and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked from the opposite party.<br /> <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:- <br /> (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The opposite party has admitted the collection of Rs. 3223.31 towards additional sales tax from the complainant at the time of the purchase of his car from the opposite party. But according to the opposite party Sec. 3 of the Kerala General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act 2003, which is in force and effect from 01.07.2003, validates the collection of tax made during the period from 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003 and requires the dealers to remit the tax so collected to the Government and accordingly the opposite party has remitted the amount collected including that of the complainant to the Government. We perused the records on file. Ext. D1 is the order of the Hon'ble High Court<br /> <br /> of Kerala in which the Managing Director, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kochi is the petitioner. The Hon'ble High Court in Ext. D1 has ruled that the petitioner as a dealer, has no right to contest Sec. 3 of Act 7 of 2003 because even if Government is found to be ineligible to recover the collected tax under the impugned provision it will have to be forfeited under Sec. 46 A of the K.G.S.T. Act for refund to the purchasers from whom sales tax is collected. Once the collected tax is forfeited to the Department, the purchasers only can claim refund of tax under Rule 31 D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules by filing declaration in Form 40. So far as the petitioner's apprehension that the Buyers may proceed against them for refund of additional tax collected from them, I do not think there is any scope for buyers to proceed against the petitioner for compliance with statutory provision, If at all any buyer has a grievance and is entitled to refund, it is for the buyer to proceed against the Department by challenging the statute and for consequential relief. In the Ext.D1 order, the opposite party is seen to have remitted the entire collected additional sales tax on 1st August 2003. In the light of the above order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, we are left with no other option than to direct the complainant to proceed against the Department if at all he has any grievance. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to prefer complaint before appropriate authority. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.08/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Photocopy of Invoice No. 50312 CS-V2 dated 24.05.2003 from Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. <br /> P2 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 28.07.2003 issued to the opposite party. <br /> P3 - Photocopy of letter dated 14.08.2003 issued to the complainant. <br /> P4 - Photocopy of letter dated 04.09.2003.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Photocopy of judgment dated 18.08.2003 in W.P(C) No. 24506 of 2003 P of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.<br /> D2 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 04.09.2003 issued to the complainant.<br /> D3 - Photocopy of letter dated 14.08.2003 issued by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT