DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.471 of 2018
Date of institution: 20.04.2018 Date of decision : 05.03.2019
Baljeet Singh son of Late Harnam Singh aged 79 years resident of House No.408, Gillco Valley, Sector 127, Kharar, Mohali 140301.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Myntra Designs Private Ltd. (Myntra.com) through its Managing Director, Address: AKR Tech Park-B Block, Krishna Reddy, Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru 560068.
2. Coracle Marketing and Services OPC Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director: Address: C/o Blue Dart Express Limited, Plot No.1 DBP Indus Survey No.96,114,115, Bashettyhalli Village, Doddaballapur, Karnataka 561203.
3. Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., through its Managing Director, Address: Du Parc Trinity, 8th Floor, 17 M.G. Road, Bengaluru 560001.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Karamveer Singh, counsel for complainant.
Shri Rohit Kumar, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
Complaint against OP No.3 has already been withdrawn.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
MRP of the shirt purchased by complainant through online e-market portal of OP No.1 from OP No.2 is Rs.1,699/- inclusive of all taxes. Discount of Rs.849/- provided and the chargeable price should have been Rs.849/-. However, OPs charged IGST @ 5% of Rs.42.45 N.P. So, total amount of Rs.891.45 N.P. has been charged. That charging of IGST on the discounted price alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of amount of Rs.42.45 N.P. alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realisation. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.
2. In reply submitted by OP No.1, it is claimed that OP No.1 as online platform is an intermediary for facilitating the transactions of sale and purchase through electronic commerce. Mr. Nikhil Aggarwal authorised signatory of OP No.1 has submitted the reply. Complainant alleged to have suppressed material facts by concocting a story, due to which complaint is not maintainable. OP No.1 alleged to have been unnecessarily dragged in litigation, despite the fact that no cause of action available against it. In view of definition of intermediary envisaged in Section 2 (1) (w) of Information Technology Act 2000 read with Section 79 of that Act, it is claimed that complainant is not consumer of OP No.1. No deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 is there and nor OP No.1 adopted any unfair trade practice. Complaint alleged to be filed for extorting money in illegal manner. Defects in the services or goods not pointed out. Matter relates to taxes and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction. All contractual/commercial terms are offered by and agreed between buyer and seller alone and OP No.1 has no role in that. Admittedly complainant purchased the product in question. Price of the product shown in the platform is unit price and not MRP of the product. OP No.1 is neither manufacturer nor seller or re-seller of the product and as such it has not collected any amount of tax/IGST. It is clearly mentioned on the platform that at the time of check out, the actual amount will be shown. Further it is mentioned at the outset as if additional tax may apply. Total record of charging of extra VAT is put up on the site. Rs.1,699/- is not MRP and as such no extra amount has been charged. Final check out page clearly makes mention of breakup of the unit price and the estimated taxation amount. Reliance on Section 15 of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 placed for claiming that value of supply of goods or services or both shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both. It is claimed that discount value to be reduced from the value of goods, while calculating the transaction value. In view of that GST to be charged from the customers on the discounted price. Other averments of the complaint denied.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and then his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Nikhil Aggarwal, alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. After going through tag Ex.C-2 it is made out that MRP of the product is Rs.1,699/- inclusive of all taxes. Perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 reveals that discount of Rs.849/- given and chargeable amount as such was Rs.849/-. However, IGST of Rs.42.45 N.P. charged for claiming total amount of Rs.891.45 N.P. from complainant through invoice Ex.C-1 dated 28.03.2018. So it is obvious that though MRP was inclusive of all taxes, but despite that on the discounted price IGST has been charged. Practice of charging VAT/IGST/Tax on the discounted price having MRP inclusive of all taxes has been deprecated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So practice of charging VAT/IGST/Tax on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes in this case certainly is unfair trade practice.
6. Even if VAT/IGST/Tax to be charged from the buyer, despite that the terms of such practice can be changed by mutually arrived at contract through which the buyer may undertake liability to pay VAT/IGST/Tax on the discounted price of a product having MRP inclusive of all taxes. It was OP No.1 and 2 themselves who professed through Ex.C-2 that MRP will be inclusive of all taxes and as such on the discounted price, OP No.1 and 2 by such undertaking bound to pay VAT or other taxes. Complainant on representation of OP No.1 and 2 of discount offer on product having MRP inclusive of all taxes, purchased the product in question and as such now OPs estopped by their act and conduct from claiming that VAT/IGST/Tax to be charged extra on the discounted price, especially when law on the subject referred above is to the contrary.
7. Provisions of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 stand on different footing than that of beneficial provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Value of supply of goods or services for ascertaining transaction value to be assessed under section 15 of CGST Act for finding amount of IGST payable by the concerned. Nowhere in Section 15 of CGST Act it is laid down that GST will be chargeable from consumer, even if the offer by buyer is to sell the product on MRP inclusive of all taxes. Assessment of turnover of a transaction for purpose of IGST to be done under the provisions of taxation statute for collecting revenue for the State, but under the garb thereof benefit of beneficial provisions of Consumer Protection Act cannot be denied to the consumers. So even if there may be responsibility of concerned OP to collect IGST on the sold product, but despite that it is bound by its offer of not charging IGST extra on the products having MRP inclusive of all taxes.
8. Invoice Ex.C-1 itself shows as if the purchase made on Myntra from OP No.2. As the order was placed through OP No.1 and honour of this order took place on issue of invoice Ex.C-1 by OP No.2 through OP No.1 and as such OP No.1 cannot escape from liability because there is nothing in the invoice Ex.C-1 to show that OP No.1 has just provided a platform or is just an intermediary. Rather on basis of invoice Ex.C-1 purchase made by complainant from OP No.2 on express authorization of OP No.1 to use its brand name and as such now OP No.1 cannot claim that it being intermediary not liable, more so when IGST charged in this case in violation of law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as referred above. There is nothing in invoice Ex.C-1 to show that OP No.1 acted as intermediary and as such benefit of provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot be derived by counsel for OP No.1. Being so, liability to remain joint and several of OP No.1 and 2 for rendering deficient services or of adoption of unfair trade practice.
9. No other point argued.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP No.1 and 2 to refund excess charged amount of Rs.42.45 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 28.03.2018 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 and 2. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Liability of OP No.1 and 2 will be joint and several. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 05, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
