Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the impugned orders, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri at Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners herein, have either been partly allowed or dismissed. The State Commission has upheld the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) insofar as the same related to refund of service tax; payment of other construction works, allegedly lying incomplete, such as club house, swimming pool, community hall etc. and the cost of which is included in the developed plot, and litigation costs. Further, while maintaining the direction of the District Forum to pay compensation of ₹1,10,000/- and ₹2,00,000/- in two cases, in one case the State Commission has reduced it to ₹1,00,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that the present Revision Petitions are confined only to the orders, directing refund of the service tax, collected by the Petitioner from the flat allottees, as the same has already been paid over to the Central Government. However, we find from the impugned orders that the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Hqs. Raipur, has written to the Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Project Division, Durg, which is regarding charging service tax against the flats in International Colony, Talpuri, Bhilai, in which it has been ordered that: “With reference to above cited subject, it is directed that representatives of allottees of Talpuri Bhilai have contacted Mandal Hqs. Raipur on 17.07.2014 and have apprised of their problem related to payment of service taxes. Case has been considered. It is, therefore, directed that in this context, action may be taken as under:- Service Tax be not recovered from allottees. Service tax if recovered earlier from allottees but service tax not deposited by the Mandal with the department, then the said amount be refunded to the allottees. Service tax be not reimbursed to the contractor.” If the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, has himself directed not to charge service tax from the allottees, the said order is binding on the present Petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of not refunding the amount of service tax so collected by the Petitioner from the allottees. We may mention here that this Commission had already upheld similar order of refund in Revision Petition No. 2709 of 2016 and other connected matters, decided on 19.07.2017. The SLP preferred against the said order, being SLP (Civil) Diary No. 4268/2018, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.05.2018. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.
The Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. |
