Complainant/petitioner filed the complaint inter alia alleging that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of his house; that the house was to be delivered within 12 months which was not done in spite of the fact that the petitioner had paid all the amounts as per the schedule; that the respondent charged service tax which was not legally chargeable; that the respondent had demanded Rs.7450/- and Rs.6550/- from the petitioner towards electricity connection charges without producing any vouchers and also demanded and charged interest at the rate of 18% for delayed payments. Petitioner filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.45,000/- paid by him towards rent and Rs.2,500/- as costs. District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not made the payment as per schedule because of which the respondent could not deliver the house in time; that as per the agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment made by him. In so far as the service tax in concerned, State Commission held that the petitioner, as per Clause-10 of the agreement had agreed to pay the sales-tax, service-tax or any other tax as applicable on such work, if any. Since the petitioner had agreed to pay the service tax, the petitioner could not turn around and say that he was not liable to pay the service tax. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Petitioner, having committed the default in making payments and being at the fault, could not find fault with the respondent for not giving the possession of the house in time. Respondent was merely the collector of the service tax. After collecting the service tax, he deposited the same with the authorities. As to whether service tax was liable to be charged, cannot be determined by this Commission. This matter has to be agitated somewhere else. There is no deficiency on the part of the respondent in charging the service tax. Dismissed. |