Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/102/2017

Pooja Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Kumar Goyal

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	102 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	3.2.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	10.4.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Pooja Gupta wife of Nikhil Gupta resident of 8229C, 1^st floor, Sector 125, New Sunny Enclave, Kharar.  

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

Shop Manager, Reebok Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Shop NO. 101, first floor Elante Mall, Chandigarh.

……. Opposite Party

 

S.S. Panesar                 PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	None
For Opposite Party	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that complainant purchased a product having MRP of Rs.899/- inclusive of all taxes. The complainant was offered discount of Rs 359.60 on the said purchase and on the price tag of the said item it mentioned that inclusive of all taxes. When the complainant was given bill he was shocked to notice that he was charged Rs.67.42 as 12.5% VAT.      The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party has adopted unfair trade practice by charging extra VAT from her. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

4.      We have thoroughly perused the record.   

 

 

5.      The case of the Complainant is that he was charged extra VAT @12.5% for the item purchased by him from the OP with MRP of Rs.899/- (which was inclusive of all taxes) after giving a discount of Rs.359.60.

 

6.      Significantly, the Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

7.      Now, the core question which survives for determination is whether the MRP includes all taxes including VAT and whether after discount VAT can be charged or not?  

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion 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. Meaning thereby that MRP includes VAT and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged if VAT is included in MRP. 

 

9.      At any rate, if the Opposite Party has offered discount of Rs.359.60 for an article purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then the Opposite Party is bound to sell the article(s) after discount. Though Opposite Party had offered Rs.359.60  discount on the article in question, still it charged 12.5% extra VAT on discounted price inspite of specific mention on the tag MRP inclusive of all taxes. When, once it is mentioned as MRP with inclusive of all taxes, charging of 12.5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 3723 of 2011, titled as “The Branch Manager, M/s Shirt Palace Branch, Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C.”, decided on 16.01.2014.

 

10.      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 01.09.2015 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.

 

11.      The ratio of the aforecited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

12.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

 

[a]  To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.67.42/- to the Complainant  

[b]  Pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [c] above. 

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10.4.2017                                                               Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER