Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/661/2017

Umang Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Woodland Business Park, Elante Mall - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/661/2017
Date of Institution	:	18/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	08/12/2017

 

Umang Bansal s/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal r/o House No.244, Wadhawa Nagar, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab – 140604.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Woodland, Business Park, Elante Mall, Chandigarh, through its authorised representative.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Manish Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vikas Verma, Area Sales Executive for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that after seeing the display poster of the OP advertising discount of 40% on the MRP, the complainant, on 27.7.2017, purchased a ladies polo T-shirt and Men’s shirt from the OP store having MRP of Rs.1,495/- and Rs.2,195/-.  The OP after discount asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,480/-.  However, upon perusal of the bill, the complainant was shocked to see that the OP had illegally levied Rs.265.68 as GST despite the fact that the price of the products was inclusive of all taxes. The complainant objected to the same, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The OP in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the complainant has failed to understand the concept of MRP and discount offered.  It has been stated that on a plain reading of the terms of sale, as advertised and displayed, it is clear that the complainant has misunderstood the display board and advertisement which clearly made public know that 40% discount is only for allowing the reduction, but, it is subject to payment of GST.  It has been denied that the OP has charged GST twice or that it sold the goods on price higher than the MRP. It has been contended that the OP has rightly charged GST. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the Area Sales Executive for OP.
5.         From a perusal of the record and tags (at page 8 of the paper book), it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase two articles namely one ladies polo T-shirt and one men’s full sleeve shirt having MRP of Rs.1,495/- and Rs.2,195/- respectively. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 27.7.2017 (at page 9 of the paper book) that after giving discount on the said products, the total amount payable came to Rs.2,224.32 only, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.2,480/- from the complainant by adding Rs.265.68 as GST. The OP has failed to substantiate its act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP included all the taxes, charging of GST on the discounted price would amount to indulging in unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
6.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including GST, and whether, after discount, GST can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the OP in charging GST on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP is liable to refund the excess amount of GST besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.265.68 (say Rs.266/-) being the amount of GST wrongly charged;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member