Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/570/2016

Vishavdeep Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S A to Z Fashion - Opp.Party(s)

In person

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/570/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	25/07/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	03/02/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Vishavdeep Kalra S/o Sh. K.L. Kalra, R/o H.No. 350/E2, Adresh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali – 160103.

 

….......... Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  M/s A to Z Fashion, SCO 80-81, Sector 17-D, Opposite Fountain, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Showroom Manager/ Owner.

 

[2]  M/s Aero Club in Dehradun: 61, Selaqui, Industrial Area, Dehradun – 248001, through its Managing Director/ Owner.

 

[3]  M/s Aero Club, 2168, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi – 110005, Opposite Post Office, through its Managing Director/ Owner.

…......... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Vig, Authorized Repr. of Complainant.

            Sh. Praveen Kumar, Area Sales Manager/Repr. of OPs.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant had purchased a pair of Shoe from the Showroom of M/s A to Z Fashion (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.1) on 17.07.2016, under a promotional offer of 40% off. It has been averred that the MRP of the said pair of Shoe was Rs.3195/- which was inclusive of all taxes. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.2167/- which included Rs.239.63/- as VAT @ 12.5%. Also, the Opposite Party No.1 had charged Rs.10/- towards donation to the UNICEF, unilaterally. The complainant accordingly raised objection relating to charging of donation to UNICEF and extra VAT as the cost of the merchandise was inclusive of all taxes and VAT had already been added to the said cost, but, the officials/employees of the Opposite Party did not agree. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that discount was subject to charging of VAT extra, to be paid by the Purchaser, and the advertisement qua the same was also displayed at the Showroom. It has been urged that the Complainant accepted the Scheme and happily paid the price. All the taxes including VAT on the product are charged by the Government. No money from these taxes goes to the Opposite Parties. Also the Opposite Parties are not beneficiary in any way for the VAT charges. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.

 

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

 

6.      We have heard the Authorized Representatives of the parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that he was charged 12.5% extra VAT of Rs.239.63P by the Opposite Parties for the pair of Shoe purchased by him with MRP of Rs.3195/- (which was inclusive of all taxes) after giving a discount of 40% under a promotional offer.

 

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

 

9.      The Opposite Parties in their defence argued that the VAT was charged as per the rules, regulations and provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax 2005. A bare perusal of the provisions of the Act referred, nowhere permits the imposition of tax on the goods which have already been tagged as ‘inclusive of all taxes’. In our opinion the MRP of any product tagged as ‘inclusive of all taxes’ establish that no more tax is required to be levied. Importantly, the Opposite Parties have also not referred to any particular provision which is applicable herein, in order to justify their stand. At any rate, the Opposite Parties have miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence in the shape of any rules/ instructions authorizing them to levy/ charge the amount of VAT in question on the MRP, which is mentioned as “inclusive of all taxes” from the gullible consumers.

 

10.      The Opposite Parties further argued that they have not charged anything above MRP of the product in question and thus can impose VAT. This stand of the Opposite Parties is bereft of any force as the discount so offered is part and parcel of their promotional policy showing hefty discounts in order to attract/ allure the gullible customers; who approach them under the misleading belief of getting hefty discounts declared by them, which comes out to be an illusion, when the they (customers) are forced to pay a good amount of VAT illegally imposed.  We are of the opinion that the discount, so offered by the Opposite Parties is offered from their own margins, as per their own choice, and are not pressurized to do so, and once the price of the product is mentioned as ‘inclusive of all taxes’, then none can add even a single penny on account of any tax. It can only be done in regards to the goods/ products where its price does not include all taxes. 

 

 

11.      In our opinion, there is a substantial 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.

 

12.      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. 

 

13.      At any rate, if the Opposite Parties had offered discount of 40% on the article purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then they are bound to sell the article after discount. Though Opposite Parties had offered 40% discount on the article in question, still they charged extra VAT @12.5% on discounted price. Once MRP is inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, to our mind, is 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.

 

14.      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. In a 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 extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice.

 

15.      The ratio of the aforecited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

16.      With regard to the allegation of the Complainant relating to charging of Rs.10/-, unilaterally, towards the UNICEF donation by the Opposite Party No.1, we are of the concerted view that the said purpose was purely for a charitable cause, and hence is a donation, therefore, the same is not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the Complainant has not raised any objection to this amount at the time of taking the invoice from the Opposite Parties, which means that it carries his consent.

 

17.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.239.63/- to the Complainant  

 

[b]  Pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

18.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they 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 mentioned in sub-para [c] above. 

 

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

Announced

03^rd February,2017                                           

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

   MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

   MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 

“Dutt”