BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 125 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 12.03.2019
Date of Decision : 16.11.2023.
Banta Singh aged 20 years son of Sh. Baldev Singh, Baldev Agro Works, Suratgadia Bazaar, near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Myntra.com- Myntra Designs Private Ltd., 3rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech Park, 7th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore- 560068, India through its Manager/ Authorized Person/ Owner/ Managing Director/ Director.
2. Savadika Retail Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No. 14/6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 16/1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12/1, 17/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11/2, 12, 13, 14, 15 Village Binola Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon Haryana 122413 through its Manager or its Authorized Representative.
IInd address of op no.2 as provided by complainant on 12.07.2019:-
Myntra. Com 848, Shankar Road, Udyog Vihar V, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………. MEMBER
Present: Ms. Anita Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.P. Kaswan, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( now u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief the case of complainant is that complainant has an online account with op no.1 on which he transacted using his mobile phone through the mobile application provided by op no.1. The op no.1 from time to time sent messages/ emails regarding the offers on different products in order to allure the customers to purchase the product. It is further averred that complainant purchased an online product i.e. Nehru Jacket after paying the consideration amount of Rs.786/- from op no.1 who is authorized dealer for selling the apparels etc. That as per bill op no.2 sent the product to complainant. The MRP of the product was Rs.1499/- inclusive of all taxes as per MRP. The ops in order to promote the sale of the articles offered a discount of 50% on the MRP. That after giving 50% discount on the product, the price of the product came to Rs.749.50 which is inclusive of all taxes but in addition thereto the op no.1 charged extra CGST total @ 2.5% & SGST total @ 2.5% on the discounted price of the product which is Rs.37.48 and complainant had to pay Rs.786/- for the consideration amount of product. That if the ops sell goods at discounted price, they are not entitled to charge any other tax from the customer on a product which mentions the price of the product in MRP (inclusive of all taxes) and the act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The ops have also defrauded by the complainant by charging tax illegally which caused mental agony with extra financial burden on the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding suppression of true and material facts, that business of answering op falls within the definition of an intermediary under Section 2 (1) (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and that answering op is protected by the provisions of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is further submitted that role of answering op is that of an intermediary only that is to provide an online platform to merely facilitate the entire transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its website and answering op is not engaged in selling of any goods on its own. That product in question was not sold by answering op rather the same is sold by other party. It is further submitted that price of the product as shown in the platform is unit price and not as a MRP of the product. That complainant has raised issue with regard to charging to IGST of Rs.37.48 @ 2.5% on the discounted price of the product in question and it is clearly mentioned on the platform that actual amount will be shown and it was also made clear at the very outset on the website that additional tax may apply, charge at checkout. Further the answering op at the time of placing the order has clearly displayed that VAT will be charged extra. It is further submitted that this fact is displayed to every consumer before consumer makes a purchase to enable the consumer to take his decision with free will and wisdom. It is further submitted that under the GST law, tax is to be charged on the value “actually paid” to the supplier for the supply of goods net of discount. The discounted price charged to the customers will be the value on which GST is to be charged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed separate written version submitting therein that answering op is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/ produced by others and is a registered seller on the website “Myntra.Com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc. under their respective Trade marks through the website. The price of the unit is always given by the manufacturer. It is admitted that MRP includes all taxes. Indeed, the complainant was provided discounts on a Unit Price and it is clear that final sale price charged from the complainant is at discount from the MRP. The final selling price is less than the MRP. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that answering op has charged any additional tax over and above what is mentioned on the MRP. The pleas taken by op no.1 are also reiterated, all other contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered tax invoice Ex.C1, MRP of the product Ex.C2 and his adhar card Ex.C3.
6. The ops did not led any evidence despite availing several opportunities and learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that written statements filed on behalf of ops may be read in evidence.
7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. From the document Ex.C2 it is evident that the Maximum Retail Price of the product i.e. Waist Coat was Rs.1499/- and from tax invoice dated 06.01.2018 Ex.C1 it is evident that ops have given discount of the amount of Rs.749.50 and the amount of Rs.18.74 on account of CGST and another amount of Rs.18.74 on account of SGST have been charged from the complainant on the remaining amount of Rs.749.50 at the rate of 2.5% each after giving discount of Rs.749.50. In the said tax invoice Ex.C1, it is very much mentioned that taxable amount is Rs.749.50 and as such amount of Rs.786/- was charged from the complainant by the ops after adding total tax amount of Rs.37.48. The complainant has failed to show that ops ever agreed to receive only amount of Rs.749.50 from the complainant after giving discount of above said amount of Rs.749.50 whereas it is clearly mentioned in Ex.C1 that after giving discount of Rs.749.50, taxable amount is Rs.749.50 and accordingly amount of Rs.37.48 was charged on the amount of Rs.749.50 by the ops. The ops have not charged any extra amount from the complainant on the pretext of taxes etc and the ops have categorically asserted that it is made clear that additional tax may apply. If the complainant was not satisfied with the value of the product, there was opportunity with him to return the product or to get the order cancelled but he has not done so. The ops have issued proper invoice to the complainant by mentioning charging of amount of Rs.37.48 on account of taxes. First of all the ops have not charged any extra amount from MRP of the product rather have given heavy discount to the complainant and secondly ops have also not charged any additional tax and there is nothing on file to suggest that ops have earned anything by charging tax amount of Rs.37.48 because said amount is to be paid to the GST authority. The complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have committed any theft of tax amount because ops have issued proper invoice to the complainant and as such complainant has failed to prove on record that ops have retained the amount of Rs.37.48 for themselves. Even the complainant has also failed to prove on record that he was only liable to pay amount of Rs.749.50 to the ops and not any tax amount. The tax has not been charged on discounted amount and the product was not sold more than the MRP amount whereas the sale price was much less than the MRP price. As such complainant has failed to prove his case and the complaint deserves dismissal.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 16.11.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
