Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/175/2021

Rajesh Kumar Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Estate Officer, GMADA - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Garg

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/175/2021
Date of Institution	:	18/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

Rajesh Kumar Jindal s/o Shri Bhagirath Jindal, resident of House No.653, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Estate Officer, GMADA, PUDA Bhawan, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. The Chief Administrator, GMADA, PUDA Bhawan, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sahil Garg, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Jashanpreet Singh Gill, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Rajesh Kumar Jindal, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant was allotted plot No.7416, Block H, measuring 200 sq. yards in Aerocity, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as “subject plot”) vide allotment letter dated 16.10.2014 (Ex.C-1) and the conveyance deed was executed on 24.8.2015.  In the month of February 2019, complainant decided to sell the subject plot to Sh. Harpreet Singh Guleria and Smt.Renu Guleria and before the execution of the sale deed, he was required to clear the dues. As per information available on the website of GMADA (OPs), a sum of ₹1,46,301/- was shown outstanding towards construction/extension fee and another sum of ₹26,350/- was shown on account of GST on the extension fee. As the deal was to be finalized within the agreed time limit of two months, formalities to clear the dues were to be completed within the short time available. In this manner, complainant had deposited the outstanding dues towards construction/ extension fee and GST under compelling circumstances through two demand drafts (Ex.C-2 colly.) dated 14.3.2019 which were submitted with OP-1 on 20.3.2019. Thereafter sale deed (Ex.C-3) was executed by the complainant in favour of the aforesaid purchasers on 15.4.2019.  However, as the OPs have charged an amount of ₹26,350/- as GST on the construction/extension fee of ₹1,46,301/-, the said act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice on their part as no such tax/GST was payable on the extension fee even as per the allotment letter (Ex.C-1).  In fact, GST/tax could have been charged by the OPs only on the transfer fee and not on the extension fee as nothing has been mentioned qua GST on the extension fee.  It is further alleged that even the HSVP has not been imposing/charging GST on extension fee which fact is also clear from the letter dated 29.4.2019 (Ex.C-4). OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi and also that the GST was charged from the complainant in accordance with the provisions of Central Goods and service Tax Act, 2017  as the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) as well as Taxation Commissioner, Punjab are charging GST at applicable tax rates on the amount of extension fee collected by the OPs, considering this service as taxable and in the absence of Commissioner of CGST and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, the present consumer complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, complainant reasserted the facts as stated in the preliminary objections.  It is further alleged that since the complainant has already sold the subject plot to third person, he has no locus standi to seek refund of any amount since he is not coming within the definition of a consumer. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject plot was allotted to the complainant by the OPs vide allotment letter (Ex.C-1) and on 14.3.2019, he had cleared the outstanding dues qua same to the tune of ₹1,46,301/- towards construction/extension fee, alongwith an amount of ₹26,350/- on account of GST on the extension fee, as is also evident from the copies of letter alongwith drafts (Ex.C-2) and after depositing the said amount, complainant had sold the subject plot to Sh. Harpreet Singh Guleria and Smt. Renu Guleria vide sale deed, as is also evident from e-registration fee receipt (Ex.C-3), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs have wrongly accepted an amount of ₹26,350/- on account of GST on the construction/extension fee, from the complainant and the said act of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the aforesaid GST amount was payable by the complainant and other allottees towards the construction/extension fee as per law and as the complainant has also sold the subject plot to a third person, he has no locus standi to file the present consumer complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs. 
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that since the allotment letter/ conveyance deed is silent about charging of any GST on the construction/extension fee, OPs had wrongly displayed on their website to pay GST on the aforesaid fee and as the complainant had deposited the said amount of ₹26,356/- on account of GST on the extension fee, he is entitled for the refund of the said amount as the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. 
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that since the construction/ extension fee is considered as service in the State of Punjab, GST was payable by such allottee as per the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed.
   4. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as it is the case of the complainant, as set up in the consumer complaint, that he had deposited the aforesaid construction/extension fee alongwith GST on finding that the said GST is payable to the tune of ₹26,350/- and if the complainant required any clarification qua the charging of GST on the said construction/extension fee, he could have approached the OPs for clarification, but, since the same was not done by the complainant before depositing the said amount with the OPs through two demand drafts, without any protest, it is clear that the complainant was aware of the said tax before depositing the same with the OPs. 
   5. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to clause 10 of the allotment letter (Ex.C-1) by contending that nothing has been mentioned in the same about deposit of the GST on extension fee and the same cannot be charged by the OPs, making further clear that the OPs had wrongly accepted the said GST amount by ignoring the allotment letter.  However, as it is clear that the said GST amount stands deposited as per provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which as per the defence OPs, is applicable on the amount of extension fee collected by the OPs considering the same taxable on service in the State of Punjab, and the said amount of tax ultimately goes to the Govt. and firstly complainant could have enquired from the OPs before making the said payment of tax by him at the time of clearance of dues with the OPs, the complainant has no right to challenge the said payment by way of present consumer complaint.
   6. Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon one letter issued by Estate Officer, HSVP Kurukshetra (Ex.C-4) which refers that no GST is levied on payment of non-construction fee.  However, as the aforesaid letter pertains to the State of Haryana and as the complainant has not produced any document, rules or regulations by the State of Punjab indicating that no GST is payable on construction/extension fee, the same is of no help to the complainant.
   7. Learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has already sold the subject plot even before filing of the present consumer complaint, he is no more a consumer and the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 
   8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it has come on record that the OPs had extracted/charged illegal amount in the shape of GST from the complainant, transfer of the subject plot later on by the complainant does not debar him from filing the present consumer complaint and the complainant to that extent is still a consumer and is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.
   9. However, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had deposited the aforesaid construction/extension fee on 14.3.2019 and immediately after that on 15.4.2019 he had sold the subject plot to Sh. Harpreet Singh Guleria and Smt.Renu Guleria and thereafter he has filed the present consumer complaint on 18.3.2021, making further clear that the complainant has ceased to be a consumer after the transfer/alienation of the subject plot in favour of the purchaser and the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission. 
   10. Learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini, I (2008) CPJ 249 (NC) in which it was also held that even when the plot was sold by the complainant during the pendency of the consumer complaint, complainant would cease to be a consumer. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that neither the complainant has any locus standi to file the present consumer complaint nor he has been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/02/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member