STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 323 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 06.12.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 08.12.2016 |
M/s A to Z Fashion Pvt. (Woodland) through its Manager, SCO 80-81, Sector-17-D, Opposite Fountain, Chandigarh.
……Appellant
V e r s u s
Priya Mehta D/o Sh. Surinder Mehta, R/o H.No.1147/A, Sector-37-B, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against order dated 02.11.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.622/2016..
Argued by: Mr.Vikash Verma, Area Sales Executive, for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party against an order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.
2. Respondent Priya Mehta filed a consumer complaint before the Forum stating that on 20.7.2016 she visited an outlet/shop operated by the appellant/Opposite Party. To promote its sale, the appellant had offered 50% discount on MRP of selected items. The complainant/respondent purchased two products (one pair of ladies shoes and one men shirt) and the appellant asked her to pay an amount of Rs.3022/- which included an amount of Rs.268/- charged towards VAT @ 12% and 5% respectively. The said amount also included Rs.10/- charged towards donation to be made to UNICEF. An objection was raised by the respondent qua wrongly charging above said amounts. It was stated that MRP shown against each item put for sale includes all leviable taxes. If it is so, it was not opened to the appellant to levy tax again. Her protest was ignored. She filed a consumer complaint bearing No.622 of 2016 alleging adoption of unfair trade practice and also alleging deficiency in service.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant/OP. Many preliminary objections were taken qua maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. It was further said that no unfair trade practice was adopted, as alleged. It was also stated that when giving discount on MRP of selected items, it was displayed on the notice board that on the discounted price, VAT will be extra charged. It was alleged that the amount so charged, was payable to the government. Stating that the complaint has been filed to get illegitimate benefit, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Both the parties led their evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting following relief to the respondent/complainant ;
[a] To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.268/- 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;
It was further directed that in terms of the order, referred to above, the amount awarded be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order , failing which, the amount awarded was to entail penal interest.
5. It was specifically contended by the representative of the appellant namely Sh.Vikash Verma, Area Sales Executive that the discounted price was the price of each product and in it tax component was not included. It was further said that it was displayed on the notice board of the appellant that on the discounted price, VAT will be imposed. The complainant had purchased the products after reading the said term and condition. It was further said that no objection was raised by the complainant when she purchased the products in question.
Similar contentions were raised before the Forum, which were rejected by observing as under ;
“ 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.
At any rate, if the Opposite Party had offered discount of 50% on the article purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then it (OP) is bound to sell the article after discount. Though Opposite Party had offered 50% discount on the article in question, still it charged extra VAT @12.5% and 5% respectively 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.
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. The ratio of the aforecited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.”
6. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified and is in consonance with the ratio of judgment of this Commission in “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh” Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, “Mother Care Reha Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kunal Kinra” Appeal No.261 of 2016 decided on 20.9.2016 and M/s A to Z Fashion Pvt.(Woodland Store) Vs Ajay Kumar, Appeal No.320 of 2016 decided on 1.12.2016. It is an admitted fact that MRP of the products sold was mentioned as Rs.3495/- and Rs.1995/- respectively. The said price includes all leviable taxes. If it is so, on the discounted price it is not open to a trader to impose VAT again on the reduced price. Otherwise also, the amount involved is very less and in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, titled CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICINAL & AROMATICS PLANTS (CIMAP) & ANR Versus JAGDISH SINGH, Revision Petition No.3094 of 2014 decided on 14.3.2016, it is not necessary to interfere in the order under challenge.
Representative of the appellant failed to show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order under challenge.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
8. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
08.12..2016
Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER
Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
MEMBER
Js
