IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 21st day of October, 2020
Filed on 21.05.2018
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.133/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Suresh.S 1. Manager
Palathinkeezhil KSFE Main Branch
Cherakadavam Kayamkulam
Kayamkulam (Adv. Rajesh.P)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
This is a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
The averment in the complaint is as follows:-
Complainant is a resident at Kayamkulam. He had subscribed 5 chitties on different period in KSFE, Kayamkulam main branch. Among them 4 chits were completed its tenure and the last one having sala Rs.5,00,000/- is going on.
Classification of bidded chitties and its details shown below.
No | Chitty No | Class | Chittal No | Service tax | Sala |
1 | 19/2014 | A | 17 | 450/- | 1lakh |
2 | 41/2014 | A | 7 | 728/- | 1 lakh |
3 | 16/2014 | A | 18 | 643/- | 1 lakh |
4 | 24/2016 | A/1 | 6 | 1224/- | 2 lakhs |
The opposite party had levied an amount of Rs.3045/- as service tax for the above 4 chits. But it is noticed from Kerala Kaumudi daily dtd. 6/2/2018(Kollam edition) reported that the Hon’ble CDRC, Kollam ordered to refund the service tax for chitty as declared unlawful along with compensation and cost to the complainant. In the above circumstance the complainant filed this complaint seeking the amount levid as service tax with interest along with compensation and cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
2. Opposite party filed version resisting the complaint by following version:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is barred by limitation. Service tax has been levied from the complainant for chitty No. 19/11, 41/14,16/14 and 24/16 are on 18/8/2012, 12/10/2015, 11/5/2015 and 11/9/2017 respectively. Among those the service tax levied on first three chits is lapses more than 2 years and therefore the complaint regarding the same is barred by limitation. The service tax and GST are levied as per the laws prevailed on that period. The services provided by Foreman in respect of chits are subject to service tax and GST, which makes the opposite party liable to levy the same and the amount thus charged from the complainant has been paid by the opposite party to the Government. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service rendered to the complainant and the obligation to be levied by the opposite party under the Service Tax Act levied on the complainant has been acted upon in good faith by the opposite party. The opposite party had preferred an appeal against the judgment mentioned in the complaint by the complainant.
3. In the view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund the amount levied as service tax by the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party?
4. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of complainant consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 documents. Evidence on the side of opposite party is Ext.B1 document. Opposite party’s counsel filed notes of argument. Heard complainant and opposite party’s counsel.
4. Point No. 1 to 3:-
For the sake of brevity these 3 points are considered together. Admittedly the complainant had subscribed 4 chits from the opposite party and for that an amount of Rs.3045/- had been levied by way of service tax by the opposite party. The dispute regarding the levy of service tax to the chits by the complainant is that the same was levied by the opposite party unlawfully which the complainant had observed from the report published in a newspaper with respect to the judgment of District Commission, Kollam. Since the said judgment was not produced before us, we are not knowing the facts and circumstances of the said case and cannot observe the findings of the same.
The main contention of opposite party in the pleadings as well as in evidence that the complaint regarding the first three transactions is barred by limitation. On verification of Ext.A2 to A3 and deposition of PW1 in cross examination it can be realized that the service taxes levied under those three transactions were obtained before 2 years of the date of filing this complaint and thus we have no hesitation to hold the contention of the opposite party regarding limitation. Even though the service tax levied on 11/9/2017 is not come under the preview of contention of limitation, the same will not stand in a position to the complaint, because it was levied according to the law prevailing those period. Ext.B1 is the circular issued as per the Finance Act 2007 by KSFE regarding the applicability of service tax on chitty scheme with effect from 1/6/2007. On perusal of the said document it can be seen that it is the duty of the authority providing cash management services to pay service tax to the authority concerned and the same has to bear the beneficiaries as per the usual and generally accepted market practice. Accordingly as a beneficiary of the opposite party who provides cash management services to the complainant, the complainant is liable to pay service tax to the opposite party as per Ext.B1. Hence in the above circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The points answered accordingly.
6. Point No.4:-
In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 21st day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Suresh( Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Chitty Prizemoney payment Voucher dtd.11/9/2017
Ext.A2 - Chitty payment Voucher dtd.11/5/2015
Ext.A3 - Chitty payment Voucher dtd.12-10-2015
Ext.A4 - Chitty payment Voucher dtd. 18-8-2012
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Circular dtd. 1/12/2007
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
