Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/77/2018

Shipra Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ronnie Grey, Lexus Business Combines Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shiti Jain Dutt Adv.

09 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	77/2018
Date of Institution	:	02.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	09/05/2018

 

                                       

                                               

Shipra Jain w/o Shaman Jain r/oH.No.3126, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Ronnie Grey, Lexus Business Combines Pvt. Ltd., SCO 26, Sector 8/B, (Inner Market),Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.     Lexus Business Combines Pvt. Ltd., F-430, Industrial Area, Phase-8B, Mohali-160071 through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

                Ms.Shiti Jain, Advocate for the complainant

                Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, after going through the advertisement of sale given by OP-1, the complainant purchased a pair of shoes having MRP of Rs.6000 vide invoice dated 31.12.2017 and after 40% discount, the price of the shoes was shown as Rs.3600/- whereas OP No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.4248/-. According to the complainant, OP No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.648/- as GST on the discounted price despite the fact that the MRP is inclusive of all the taxes Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that they have specifically displayed at the store about the charging of GST (extra) after the discount in the advertisement displayed inside the shop and the complainant has mentioned the same in the complaint.  The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the counsel for the parties.
5.        In evidence, the complainant has filed her detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.  The perusal of the price tag (Annexure C-2 ) shows that the complainant did purchase a pair of shoes having MRP of Rs.6000/-. Further, it is evident from the invoice (Annexure  C-1) that OP No.1 had illegally charged a sum of Rs.648/- towards the GST on the discounted price despite the fact that the MRP is always inclusive of all taxes. The OPs have failed to substantiate their act either through some Govt. notification or case law.
6.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including GST, and whether, after discount, GST can be charged or not? 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 1.9.2015 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 another 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 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice.
7.         The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. As such, when MRP included all the taxes, charging of extra GST on the discounted price would certainly amount to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of GST besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)    To refund Rs.648/- charged towards the GST to the complainant.

(ii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,100/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09/05/2018                                   

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER