ISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 206 of 12.5.2016
Decided on: 11.8.2016
Paramjit Singh Walia S/o Sh.Raghbir Singh R/o # 19 A-1, Ranbir Marg, Model Town, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Sales Manager/Prop.SAMMATI, Adidas Exclusive, GF-11, Omaxe Mall; Opposite Kali Mata Mandir, Patiala.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Walia, complainant in person.
O.P. Exparte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
Sh. Paramjit Singh Walia has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the issuance of the following directions to the O.P.:-
- To refund the excess amount charged from him.
- To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation as also the cost of litigation.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that the goods manufactured under the international brand name of ADIDAS are being sold by SAMMATI, ADIDAS EXCLUSIVE, GF-1, Omaxe Mall, Patiala.
The O.P. in order to permote the sale of the products manufactured under the brand name of ‘ADIDAS’, offered 50% discount on M.R.P. on 24.7.2015.The complainant purchased one Galaxy Short of White/Black colour from the O.P. on 24.7.2015 vide sale invoice No.SC1837, dated 24.7.2015. The MRP of the Galaxy Short was Rs.1299/-(inclusive of all taxes). It is averred that the seller charge any tax whatsoever on the MRP.
It is further averred by the complainant that the OP charged the Vat extra as the MRP was inclusive of all taxes and in that way the OP charged the tax on tax, which amounts to unfair trade practice as also illegal act.
It is further averred that the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the OP, who disclosed that vat was to be charged as per T&C. The Sales Manager/Proprietor told that the vat was charged as per the directions of the manufacturer.
It is further averred that the act of the OP in having charged the vat resulted into harassment as also the mental agony experienced by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant approached this Forum. Hence this complaint.
3. On notice, OP failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
5. The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence on record carefully.
6. Ex.C1 is the retail invoice dated 24.7.2015, issued by the OP regarding the sale of one TS Galaxy Short bearing No.AB-4088 XL, showing the M.R.P. of Rs.1299.00 and discount of Rs.649.50. Taxable value has been shown as Rs.649.50 and after adding the tax @ 6.05%, the net value of the product has been noted as Rs.689.00
7. It was submitted by the complainant that the MRP is inclusive of all taxes and the OP is not permitted to charge the tax @ 6.05%.This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
Section 12(1) of the Vat Act provides : “A registered person shall issue only a retail invoice for sale made by him and shall not be eligible to issue a vat Invoice”.
8. From the retail invoice Ex.C1, one cannot say that the OP is registered under the Vat Act. In our case, the OP issued the Vat Invoice having charged the tax @ 6.05% on the taxable value. The O.P. had no basis to charge the tax amount as it is not shown that the O.P. is registered under the Vat Act. Moreover, the OP failed to contest the claim of the complainant, which shows the indifferent attitude of the OP to redress the grievance of the complainant. Thus, the charging of tax @ 6.05% by the OP amounted to unfair trade practice on its part.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and direct the O.P. to refund the tax amount of Rs.39.29p in respect of the complaint No.CC/206/12.5.2016 with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the invoice. Since it was an unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P., it is also burdened with a sum of Rs.8000/- out of which Rs.5000/- should be paid to the complainant and Rs.3000/- to be deposited in legal aid fund. The said amount is inclusive of the cost of litigation. The order be complied by the O.P. within one month of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced
Dated:11.8.2016
Neelam Gupta Neena Sandhu
Member President
