NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3365/2011

R. KRISHNAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

VAUDE VILLE FOUNDATION & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESH KUMAR

09 Feb 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3365 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 30/03/2011 in Appeal No. 351/2008 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
1. R. KRISHNAN
S/o Sh H. Ramanthan, Sudari Vilasan House No08 Karthikeyan Gardens, Tiruvanakoli
Trichy - 620005
Tamil Nadu
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. VAUDE VILLE FOUNDATION & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
F-4 Phase-II green House Apartments No-28 Mc Donald Road Cantonment
Trichy - 620001
Tamil Nadu
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. RAJESH KUMAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 Feb 2012
ORDER

        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.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.