BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.483 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 04.10.2019

      Date of Decision: 22.02.2023

Kapil Sehgal age 33 S/o Late Sh. Yuvraj Sehgal, Resident of E. G. 783, Nehru Garden Road, Opposite Railway Station, Jalandhar City-144001.

..........Complainant

Versus

Sagar Ratna Franchisee Ishvi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Shakti Mall, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Party

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Kapil Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Umesh Dhingra, Adv. & Sh. Karan Seth, Adv.Counsels         for OP.

Order

Jyotsna (Member)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that on 25.08.2019 the complainant along with his friend has gone to Sagar Ratna Resturant i.e. OP for eating Dosa and after eating Masala Dosa, the OP charged bill of Rs.431/-, which consisting bill of one water bottle is Rs.60/- and Two Masala Dosa are Rs.175/- each. Whereas the MRP of water bottle mentioned is Rs.60/- inclusive of all taxes, but the OP charged excess GST amount on water bottle from the complainant, which caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Moreover, OP has already mentioned in Menu Card Price of Water Bottle is sale on MRP and Masala Dosa is Rs.175/- each. Not only this, the OP also charged tax on tax as the water bottle has already inclusive the tax, but the OP again charged and moreover, OP has charged 5% GST on water bottle in Exclusive Form instead of Inclusive Form because its clearly mentioned on water bottle MRP i.e. inclusive of all taxes so this act of the OP is not only cheating with the complainant, but also with the general public. Cash Payment paid by the complainant to OP. The complainant suffered a great mental tension, agony and harassment apart from humiliation due to above said act and conduct of the OP. There is great deficiency, unfair trade practice and negligence in services on the part of the OP and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the amount of GST illegally charged i.e. Rs.3/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. The complainant is not Consumer as per the definition of Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the controversy involved in the complaint is about the charging of CGST/SGST on Restaurant Service which does not fall within ambit of consumer dispute. Therefore, the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act lacks jurisdiction to interfere in the proposition of law involving the levy of Central Goods and Service Tax and State Goods and Service Tax. The present complaint is not maintainable under law. The complaint is false and has been filed with ulterior motive for extracting money from OP, as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties very minutely.

5.                After going through the pleadings of both the parties, the complainant in this complaint has claimed that OP has charged GST above the MRP of water bottle i.e. Rs.60/-, whereas the MRP of water bottle is inclusive of all taxes. Copy of the bill is Ex.C-1 and copy of water bottle where MRP of Rs.60/- is printed Ex.C2 and copy of menu card where it is mentioned that price of the water bottle is MRP Ex.C-3.

6.                On the other hand, the OP has claimed that the sale of mineral water by restaurant includes service, enjoyment of ambiance etc. as such the price can be charged in excess of the MRP printed on bottle. OP has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case titled as ‘Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India Vs. Union of India, cited as 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 513.

7.                As per the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the restaurant can mention any price above MRP in their menu card. The complainant has not challenged the price mentioned in the menu card. So, the above judgment does not apply in this case. Once the OP has mentioned in menu card that mineral water bottle will be sold at MRP. OP cannot charge GST above on MRP since GST always is included in MRP. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant in regard to getting more price than MRP is established and it is settled law that none of the dealer, manufacturer can charge excess price than the MRP because MRP means include all taxes etc. In support of this version, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, decided in Revision Petition No.3156 of 2016, titled as “Benetton India Pvt. Limited Vs. Ravinder Singh”. We further like to refer another pronouncement of UT State Commission, Chandigarh, decided in CC No.400/2015, decided on 14.01.2016, titled as “Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. M/s ADI Sports etc”.

                   Further, as per law laid down in case titled as M/s. Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs Rakesh Sharma in Revision Petition No.347 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the law laid down in M/s. Aero Club Vs Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided in First appeal No.136 of 2017 on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT , it has been held that practice of charging GST on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes is an unfair trade practice.

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and accordingly, OP is directed to refund the excess price charged from the complainant i.e. Rs.3/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of payment till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant for causing harassment, mental agony, to the tune of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

22.02.2023         Member                          Member           President