Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1800/2008

Sri A. Lakshmipathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Udaya Shankar M. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Venugopala Krishna

15 Jan 2009

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1800/2008

Sri A. Lakshmipathy
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sri Udaya Shankar M.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of Filing:18.08.2008 Date of Order:15.01.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1800 OF 2008 A. Lakshmipathy, S/o Late Anandappa, R/at Flat No.001, Ground Floor, Akshaya Residency, Hebbal, Bangalore 24. Complainant V/S Udaya Shankar. M, S/o Mallikarjunaiah, Managing Director, M/s Akshaya Builders and Developers, No. 148, 6th Main, II Stage, II Phase, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore-560 086. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased flat from the opposite party under sale deed dated 08/03/2006 for Rs.8,50,800/-. This amount includes a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards sales tax and other service taxes. Opposite party failed to pay or deposit the same before the competent authority though is bound to pay the same. Therefore, the complainant prays that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.48,000/- with interest. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. The opposite party put in appearance through Advocate and filed defense version stating that the complainant has purchased flat for Rs.8,50,000/- through registered sale deed dated 08/03/2006 which includes sum of Rs.48,000/- towards sales tax and service tax is admitted. It is false that the opposite party has not paid Rs.48,000/-. It is the specific case of the opposite party that the amount collected from the complainant and other flat owners has been remitted to the service tax department by the opposite party under challan dated 07/07/2006. Hence, there is no deficiency in service. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. Both the parties have filed written argument. I have gone through the complaint and defense version. 4. The only point that arise for consideration is:- “Whether the opposite party has deposited sales tax and service tax or not?” 5. The learned Advocate for the complainant fairly submitted during the course of argument that, if the opposite party produces or shows documentary proof that it has paid or deposited sales tax or service tax from the flat owners then the complainant has no grievance at all and the complainant will be satisfied if the opposite party is able to show the documentary proof for having paid the sale tax and service taxes. This argument is appreciated. The opposite party has produced original challan dated 07/07/2006. As per this challan the opposite party has paid/remitted in all Rs.4,50,863/- under Panbase STC No.AACPU 0412 CST 001. This service tax was paid for the month of April, May and June-2006 and this amount is tax on construction of residential complex. The sale deed of the complainant had been executed in the month of March-2006. Therefore, naturally the service tax remitted by the complainant in the month of April, May and June-2006 had been covered the amount received from the complainant towards service tax. Therefore, in view of the production of documentary proof i.e., original challan there remains no case for the complainant to seek any relief. The purpose of filing this complaint is also to see that the opposite party should produce the documents for having remitted sales tax/service tax. The opposite party having produced the original challan in proof of having paid/remitted the service tax, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.,