Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/61/2020

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Sachdeva

22 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                      

Complaint No.61 of 2020.

Date of Instt.:25.02.2020.

Date of Decision: 22.04.2024.

Ram Kumar son of Sh.Shamsher Sihgh resident of village Ahli Sadar, Hijrawan Khurd,Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

...Complainant

     Versus

 

1.Shakti Motors Private Limited, Sirsa Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its authorized person.

2.Shakti Motors Private Limited, Dabwali Road Sirsa, Tehsil  & District Sirsa through its authorized person.

3.GST Officer Near Sindicate Bank, Fatehabda Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

4.Assitant Commissioner, CGST, Division Sirsa, Tehsil & District Sirsa.

 

..Opposite Parties.

CORAM:   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                            Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member                                                                  Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                    Sh.Naresh Sachdeva, Advocate for complainant.                                         Sh.Sudhir Narang, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.                                  Ops No.3 & 4 exparte VOD 04.09.2023.                  

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is 100 % physically handicapped person and for his personal use he booked a car Maruti Ignis Delta AMT (Petrol) with Ops No.1 & 2 by depositing a sum of Rs.11,000/- with them on 14.01.2019;  that at the time of booking, it was assured that being handicapped person the complainant would have to pay 10 % less GST as per the rules of the government with 0 % cess in comparison to normal vehicle;  that on 30.04.2019, the booked car was delivered to the complainant by the Op N No.2 and regarding this the complainant had made the payment of Rs.5,51,205.32/- through NEFT; that at the time of delivery, the complainant requested the Op No.2for the rebate/concession  as per the notification of the Government dated 28.06.2017 but it refused to pay the same and received 28 % GST instead of 18 % with 1 % cess; that thereafter, the complainant requested the Op No.2 for applying the registration certificate after granting rebate/concession besides making several correspondence to the Ops No.3 & 4; that No.4 in response, replied that as per rule 89 of the CGST Rule, 2017 any person except the person covered under notification issued Section 55, claiming refund of any tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount paid, may file an application electronically in FORM GSR RFD-01 through common portal; that thereafter the complainant kept on requesting the Ops to do the needful but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A with documents Annexure C1 to Annexure 18 and Ex.C19.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies.  Ops No.1 & 2 in their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts from this Commission, maintainability and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that in order to take concession of 10 % being handicapped person, the concerned person was required to submit an application in the prescribed format with disability certificate and self attested certificate to under Secretary (AEI Section) Department of Heavy Industry qua not availing of concession during the last five years with a condition that the vehicle would not disposed of within a period of 5 years; that as per the policy, the rebate/concession would be given to the complainant being 100 % disabled person in the registration fee and in getting the vehicle insured as per the norms; that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in routine/normal process without having any special quota; that in the disability certificate the complainant had not disclosed that from which part of the body he is disabled person; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Ops No.3 & 4 in the joint reply have submitted that the Op No.2 had charged 28 % GST with 1 % cess from the complainant on his purchasing of new  Maruti Ignis Delta Amt; that in terms of S.No.400 of Notification No.1/2017-integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended and order Vide F.No.12(42)/2015-AE1 dated 24.10.2019 of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industries the concessional rate of Motor Vehicles Covered under Tariff Heading 8703 is 18 % subject to fulfillment of conditions; that the complainant had failed to follow the proper procedure and had approached under Secretary (AEI Section); that the complainant had submitted the concessional certificate issued on 09.05.2019 and further the complainant moved application to the office of GST Council for the refund of 10 % GST and the same was received by him on 26.06.2019; that the respondent No.2 had failed to guide the complainant appropriately for availing the concessional rate of GST benefit for the  purchase of new vehicle; that since the complainant had paid 28 % GST amount for purchase of vehicle and has being a registered assessee of GST Department, OP No.2 had to charge GST correctly but it has not done so, therefore, the refund of 10 % is admissible to the complainant.  During the proceedings of the case the Ops No.3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte. In evidence, the Ops No.1 & 2 have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A with documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/9.

4.                We have heard oral final arguments from all sides besides going through the material available on the case file. In our considered opinion, the same were almost repetitions of averments of pleadings of the parties

5.                Vide Annexure C1, the complainant had purchased the vehicle car for a sum of Rs.5,51,205.32/- on 30.04.2019 from Op No.2 wherein the amount of Rs.1,19,641/-  (Rs.59820.73+59820.73=1,19,641/- in round figure) was charged by the Op No.2 @ 28 % for CGST/GST with amount of Rs.4272.90/- being cess @ 1 %. Perusal of Annexure C4 reveals that the purchase of the car/complainant is 100 % handicapped and the fact qua rebate/concession of 10 % of GST/CGST to the 100 % handicapped person is not disputed by any of the parties. The complainant has come with the plea that he had completed all the requisite formalities qua submission of all the documents including his duly sworn affidavit qua not purchasing/selling of any vehicle with GST facility  and further he verified that he would not sell/dispose off the car in question in next five years. The Ops No.1 & 2 have come with the plea that the complainant himself had not completed all the formalities and even in the disability certificate it has nowhere mentioned that as to which part of the body is disabled, therefore, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can be attributed towards them.

6.                After going through the contents/material available on the case file it is ample clear that the complainant has not received the benefit of 10 % rebate/concession for which he was entitled being 100 % disabled person as per the admission of Ops. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has argued that it was the   duty of the Ops No.1 & 2 to describe all the formalities to the complainant at the time of purchasing and delivery of the vehicle which was allegedly purchased by the complainant on 30.04.2019 (Annexure C1). On the other hand the Ops No.3 & 4 have come with the plea that the Ops No.1 & 2 had to charge correct GST keeping in view the entitlement of the complainant being 100 % disabled person. The Ops No.1 & 2 in their evidence had placed on case file documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/9. Perusal of these documents shows that these documents were to be submitted by the complainant with the concerned GST department for concession/rebate being orthopedically disabled person. Learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 have strongly contended that no doubt the Ops No.2 had charged CGST/GST @ 28 % as per prevailing rate of GST and has not charged excess amount but even then if this Commission comes to the conclusion that any excess amount has been charged and deposited with the GST and CGST authorities/Ops No.3 & 4 then the concerned GST department is liable to refund the same to the complainant. Since the fact qua disability of the complainant has already come in the knowledge of the Ops No.1 & 2 at the time of delivery of the vehicle, therefore, it was their duty to made the complainant understood about the concession/rebate of 10 % in GST/CGST but despite that it had charged 28 % CGST/GST on the car allegedly purchased by the complainant. Had the Ops No.1 & 2 guide the complainant appropriately the arising situation could have been avoided, which is the root cause of the matter under consideration.

7.                          Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.11964/- being 10 % of the total amount i.e. Rs. 1,19,641/- to the complainant because the complainant had already completed the formalities by submitting requisite documents/certificate but this Commission is of the further view that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. The amount mentioned above be returned within a period of 45 days failing which the awarded amount would carry 12 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  The liability of the Ops would be joint and several.  

8.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated:22.04.2024

                                                                                                                  

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President