Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/227/2017

Harpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s A to Z Fashion Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. Saini Adv. & Vandana Adv.

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

(1)

Consumer Complaint  No	:	227/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	07.03.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	21.07.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Harpreet Kaur w/o Sh.Navpreet Singh r/o H.No.948, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh

                   …..Complainant

Versus

 

M/s A To Z Fashion Pvt. Ltd., (Woodland Store) SCO No.80-81, Sector 17-D, Opposite Fountain, Chandigarh through its Proprietor /Manager/Authorized Signatory.

….. Opposite Party

 

(2)

Consumer Complaint  No	:	229/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	07.03.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	21.07.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Paramjit Kaur w/o late Sh.Manohan Singh r/o H.No.1736, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh

                   …..Complainant

Versus

 

M/s A To Z Fashion Pvt. Ltd., (Woodland Store) SCO No.80-81, Sector 17-D, Opposite Fountain, Chandigarh through its Proprietor /Manager/Authorized Signatory.

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:     SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Present:     Ms.Vandana, Adv. for the complainant(s)

                   Sh.Vikas Verma, Authorized Agent of the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

                By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.

2.         The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.227 of 2017-Harpreet Kaur Vs. M/s A To Z Fashion Pvt. Ltd.,
3.         In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a jacket of the MRP of Rs.3695/- at the discount of 40% vide invoice dated 22.02.2017 for Rs.2328.15P. It has been averred that despite her repeated protests, the OP had charged Rs.110.85P on account of VAT @ 5% on the discounted price despite the fact that the MRP is always inclusive of all the taxes including VAT. The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party has adopted unfair trade practice by charging extra VAT. 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.           In its written statement, Opposite Party took the preliminary objections inter alia that the complaint cannot be entertained as the complainant failed to understand the  concept of MRP and the discount offered which was a condition of taxes to be charged extra VAT which is always paid or is payable on the occasion of sale when the goods are sold.  It has further been pleaded that the OP clearly mentioned on the display boards that 40% to 60% discount will be available on the MRP but the VAT was to be charged extra.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           We have heard the Counsel for the complainant & the authorized representative of the OP and have also gone through the evidence on record.
4.           The core question which survives for determination is whether VAT can be charged on the discounted price when MRP of a product is inclusive of all taxes? The answer to this question is in the negative.
5.           In our opinion, there is a difference between the remarks “Retail Price” and “Actual Price” of the goods. The MRP is inclusive of all taxes and a retailer can sell at a price below the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) because MRP is the maximum retail price allowed for that commodity and not the actual price. A retailer can well reduce his margin built into MRP, while on the other hand, the actual price can be much lower than the MRP. When once it is displayed that the MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then in no circumstances the VAT can be added to it afterwards.
6.           In the present complaint, the Opposite Party had charged 5% extra VAT in spite of the specific mentioning of the maximum retail price (inclusive of all taxes). Since it is an offence to sell at a price higher than the marked price, so it is also not legal to charge any tax on the product/item carrying tag of maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes.
7.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that no one can charge any tax on the product where MRP is mentioned as inclusive of all taxes including VAT/other taxes etc. When MRP of the goods is inclusive of all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately; which establish that MRP includes VAT also and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged.  But as in the present complaint, it is quite clear vide Annexure C-1 that the OP had charged VAT @ 5% separately despite the fact that the MRP is always inclusive of all taxes and as such the OP has indulged into unfair trade practice.
8.           It has been argued on behalf of the OP that  the OP is offering discount on MRP from 40% to 60% on the price as displayed with a further condition that the price shall be subject to VAT extra.  However, this plea of the OP is not sustainable in the view of proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the Revision Petition No.3477/2016 titled as M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma, decided on 04.01.2017. The operative part of the said judgment read as under:-

“14.  In our opinion, the advertisement in the above form is nothing but an allurement to gullible Consumers to buy the advertised merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself was not intended to be the real “bargaining price” and, therefore, tantamounts to unfair trade practice, as found by both the Fora below. Significantly, under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, the “Maximum Retail Price” printed on the goods, a mandatory labelling requirement, at the relevant time, for pre-packaged goods, means “such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the goods.” In that view of the matter, having seen the word “FLAT” in the advertisement, a consumer would be tempted to buy the goods under a bonafide belief that he would get a flat 40% off on the MRP. In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40%” on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.

 

14.           A similar question arose for determination before our 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 inclusive of all taxes, then VAT/Other taxes cannot be charged separately.  In the recent decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice.
15.           The ratio of the afore-cited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in charging VAT on discounted article in question, clearly proves deficiency in service having indulged into unfair trade practice on its part, which certainly had caused immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
16.           For the reasons recorded above, the present complaints are allowed qua the OPs. The OPs are directed as under:-

Consumer Complaint No.227 of 2017-Harpreet Kaur Vs. M/s A To Z Fashion Pvt. Ltd.,

a]     To refund the excess amount charged as 5% VAT i.e. Rs.111/- (rounded off) from the complainant.

b]     To pay an amount of Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment;

c]     To pay Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses.

Consumer Complaint No.229 of 2017-Paramjit Kaur Vs. M/s A To Z Fashion Pvt. Ltd.,

a]     To refund the excess amount charged as 5% VAT i.e. Rs.188/- (rounded off) from the complainant.

b]     To pay an amount of Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment;

c]     To pay Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses.

17.         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of this order till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.
18.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21.07.2017                                                                

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER