DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.208 of 12.5.2016
Decided on: 13.10.2016
Sandeep Kumar Gupta s/o Dr.Ashok Gupta # 25-C, New Lal Bagh Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Sales Manager/Prop. AERO CLUB (WOODLAND STORE), 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,Adv. counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Karan Preet Singh, Authorized representative
of the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Sandeep Kumar Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund the excess amount charged from him
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.
- Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the O.P. , in order to promote the sale of the products, manufactured under the brand name of “WOODLAND” offered 40% discount on M.R.P. He purchased one Full Sleeve Jacket of Black Colour from the O.P., vide retail invoice dated 13.1.2016. The M.R.P. of the aforesaid jacket was Rs.7495/-(inclusive of all taxes).After purchase of the jacket, it came to his notice that the O.P. charged Rs.272.07, extra on account of VAT, despite the fact that the M.R.P. was included all the taxes and he was made to pay twice for the taxes. He brought the matter to the notice of O.P., who told that VAT is extra as per T&C. The same has been charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. In this way, the O.P. has charged tax on tax, which is not only illegal but also an unfair trade practice on its part.
3. On being put to notice, O.P. appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the matter being related to charging of VAT, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and that the O.P has not charged the tax twice, the burden of payment of Vat or any other taxes to be paid was at the event of sale and it was made clear that company offers 40% to 50% discount but subject to payment of Vat by the customer. The answering O.P. floated a scheme allover India that 50% discount on the M.R.P. in WOODLAND Products and VAT extra. The said O.P. has not charged any extra amount from the complainant. No retailer can sell the product more than the M.R.P. mentioned on the goods. There was complete disclosure and transparency in the advertisement. On merits, it is admitted that it has charged Rs.272.07 as VAT from the complainant. O.P. is duly authorized and duty bound to charge the VAT and deposit the same with the department under the VAT Act. It is further stated that charging of VAT is not an illegal Act. The complainant has no where disclosed that he had paid tax on tax. It is admitted that the complainant was made fully aware that VAT will be charged separately. The O.P. has rightly charged the tax. There is no unfair trade practice on its part. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant, tendered in evidence Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 retail invoice, Ex.C2 tag and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the representative of the O.P. tendered in evidence ,Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Karan Preet Singh, Exs.OP1 to OP4 photographs and closed the evidence.
5. The O.P. filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant & the representative of the O.P. and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased the jacket in question on 40% discount and had paid Rs.4769/-, as cost of the said jacket and Rs.272.07 as Vat, which is evident from the invoice dated 13.1.2016, Ex.C1. The charging of vat on the discounted price would tantamount to charging of tax on tax and in violation of the provisions of Punjab Vat Act. On the other hand, the authorized representative of the O.P. submitted that Vat has rightly been charged on the sale of the said jacket, as per provision of legal metrology. It has not sold the product on the price more than the M.R.P. and had taken due care that final retail price, after discount and Vat together should not be morethan M.R.P., indicated on the tag of the jacket in question. The amount of Vat, charged has already been deposited with the taxation authority and has not gone to its pocket. Therefore, the demand raised by the complainant, for refund of amount of Rs.272.07, which he had paid on account of Vat is illegal, and is not tenable.
7. “The core question, whish arises for consideration, is as to whether, can the O.P. charge Vat on the sale of the product on discounted price?
From the price tag, Ex.C2, it is evident that the maximum retail price, (hereinafter referred to be as M.R.P.) of the jacket in question, is Rs.7,495/-.In the said tag , it is specifically mentioned that M.RP is inclusive of all taxes. Once, it was mentioned that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, the O.P. by charging extra vat not only committed deficiency in service but it has also indulged in unfair trade practice. In the case of Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill, First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh has held that ‘no one can charge more than the M.R.P. and M.R.P. includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.272/-being charged as Vat
- To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation
- To pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
The OP is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The certified copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
-
