Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/361/2017

Nikhil Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shop Manager, Reebok Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Simranjeet Singh

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/361/2017
Date of Institution	:	26/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	15/09/2017

 

Nikhil Gupta son of Radheshyam Gupta resident of 8229C, 1^st Floor, Sector 125, New Sunny Enclave, Kharar.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Shop Manager, Reebok Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.101, First Floor Elante Mall, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Simranjeet Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 22.12.2016, the complainant purchased a product from the OP vide invoice (Annexure P-1) having MRP of Rs.899/- on which discount of Rs.359.60 was given.  Thereafter the net payable amount came to Rs.539.40, but, the OP, by illegally adding VAT @ 12.5% i.e. 67.42, charged an amount of Rs.607/- from the complainant.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The OP in its written reply has denied that it had charged VAT extra on the item.  It has also been denied that the OP has charged the price in excess of the price fixed. It has been averred that since the merchandise in question was not brought by the complainant at the marked price, no VAT was charged from or was paid by the complainant on the said product.  Rather, the discount was duly applied to the marked price and thereafter VAT was charged on the product. The complainant’s understanding of the applicable MRP law is erroneous. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
5.         From a perusal of the record it becomes evident that the complainant did make purchase of a product “Slides Chrome Flip BD 3933” having MRP of Rs.899/-. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) that after giving discount on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.539.40 only, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.607/- from the complainant by adding Rs.67.42 as VAT. The OP has failed to substantiate its act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP includes all the taxes, charging of VAT on the discounted price would amount to indulging in unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
6.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT 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 extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the OP in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP is liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.67.42 (say Rs.68/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged from him;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member