The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that complainants purchased one flat of area 1281 sq.ft. with the consideration price fixed by both parties and Op executed a registered Sale Deed being no.04213 for the year 2012. After purchasing the flat the oP wanted Rs.1,41,000/- for Service Tax and the same amount was paid by the complainant on 11.11.2012. The complainant requested the oP to deliver the Treasury challan or bill regarding payment of said Service charges to the Govt. but the Op did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants. Further case of the complainant is that OP by a letter dated 29.12.2013 showed the consideration price of the flat Rs.7,37,500/- and service charge Rs.97,785/- . It is alleges that inspite of request the oP did not give any information regarding deposition of service charge by the oP to the authority concern.
It is further case of the complainant that they purchased a resold flat for which they are not required to pay service charge because OP has already taken service charge from the previous flat purchaser in the year 2010 in the name of Bhaba Ranjan Das and Gitasree Das. So the complainants on several occasions requested the Op to refund Rs.97,785/- paid by the complainant to the Op as Service Tax. The complainant served notice to the oP but the Op did not comply the same. Hence, this case for refunding the said Service Tax of Rs.97,785/- and Other reliefs.
The OP has contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations para wise. The Op’s case which is gathered from the Written version is that the oP took the service charge from the complainants and that has been deposited to the concerned
Service Tax Authority . It is also stated by the Op that as the Service tax has been deposited to the authority concerned so Op has nothing to do in this matter. It is also stated that Service tax has already been deposited during the concerned period for number of flat owners by Treasury challans which has been deposited before the proper authority. Op has also given the Service Tax Registration number AACCR6158FSD001. So , the case should be dismissed.
The complainants have filed some papers , receipts, copy of notice dated 17.12.2013 and Xerox copy of some other papers including Xerox copy of Deed of conveyance dated 18.10.2012, another Deed of conveyance dated 5.8.2010 (previous sale), Evidence in chief and W.N.A. This complainant second purchaser of old flat. On the other hand, Op has filed Brief Notes of Argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- If there is any deficiency on the part of the oP ?
- If complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
We have gone through the Written Notes of argument of complainant and Opposite party . We have gone through the complainant and Written version and two Sale deeds executed by the Op in favour of present owner and previous owner. We have gone through the receipt filed by the complainant showing payment of Rs.97,785/- on 15.12.2012 by the OP. The oP admits that the complainants paid Rs.97,785/- as Service Tax . The complainants now wants to refund of the Service Tax on the plea that the oP has taken Service charge from the previous purchaser in the year 2010 but the oP contended that, that Service Tax has been deposited to the authority concerned. The oP has also submitted the Service Tax number in the Written Notes of Argument which has been mentioned hereinabove. The money which has been taken by the Op has been deposited before the Service Tax authority in this Service Tax number. So, the non refund of the service tax does not come within the purview of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice of OP. There is no defect of transaction or there is no defect of non compliance of the agreement of the flat and no complaint against the construction etc. i.e. within the purview of service as defined in the C.P.Act, 1986 and the point of dispute reflected in the case of both sides does not come within the purview of the C.P.Act, 1986. Complainant had sufficient opportunity to follow up the deposition of Service Tax by the Op . Op has nothing to do in this matter. The complainant was badly advised for filing this case as their allegations does not come within the purview of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, after considering the materials on record we are of opinion that the complainant failed to prove their case within the purview of C.P.Act, 1986. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the Complaint case no. 57 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
