Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/444/2017

Subhash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adidas Sachdeva & Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/444/2017
Date of Institution	:	07/06/2017
Date of Decision	:	03/11/2017

 

Subhash Chander S/o Late Kanhya Lal, resident of House No. 215, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Adidas Sachdeva & Co., SCO 413-414, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

……Opposite Party

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

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sahil Shori, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Jasbir Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.                The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 03.06.2017, the complainant made purchase from OP vide invoice Annexure C-2. The MRP of the product was Rs.899/- (Original Price Tag Annexure C-1), on which the OP offered discount of 50% and the amount after discount came to Rs.499.50/-.  However, OP illegally levied VAT @ 5% i.e. Rs.22.48/- on the said amount and charged the net amount of Rs.472/-.  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 was fully aware of the terms and conditions displayed by the answering OP before purchasing the product in issue and after knowing about the discount offer and after being fully aware of the terms and conditions on which the discount offer could be availed, the Complainant after due application of mind accepted the terms and conditions of the answering Opposite Party by duly paying the consideration amount without any protest whatsoever.  Further, the VAT amounting to Rs.22.48/- was levied as per law on the sale price. Otherwise also, as per law, the discounts are not of tax, as it is only the State Government which can exempt or reduce the tax. It has been denied that the OP has committed any illegality in charging VAT.  It has been contended that the OP has not charged tax twice. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their 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 Ld. Counsel for the parties.

5.                From a perusal of the record, it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase the product having MRP of Rs.899/-. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 03.06.2017 (Annexure C-2) that after giving discount on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.449.50/- only, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.472/- from the complainant by adding Rs.22.48/- as VAT. The OP has failed to substantiate its act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP included all the taxes, charging of VAT 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 VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT 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 VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP is liable to refund the excess amount of VAT 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.22.48/- (say Rs.23/-) being the amount of VAT 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, OP 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/-
03/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”