Case nº Revision Petition No. 3156 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 25/07/2016 in Appeal No. 948/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) of NCDRC Cases, February 09, 2017 (case Benetton India Private Limited Vs Ravinder Singh)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Advocate |
| President | Mr. Ajit Bharihoke,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | February 09, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 25.07.2016 whereby the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal No. 948/2015 filed by the petitioner opposite party and confirmed the order of the District Forum Amritsar.
-
Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent complainant on 11.07.2014 purchased one trouser from the petitioner opposite party vide bill no. 769-3375 dated 11.07.2014. The trouser was offered on 30% discount on MRP, which as per tag was Rs.2299/- inclusive of all taxes. The petitioner after discounting the MRP by 30% of Rs. 2299/- sold the trouser for Rs.1609/-. However, on the aforesaid discounted price, the petitioner charged 6.05% VAT amounting to Rs.97.36/-. According to the complainant, when the trouser was offered on 30% discount on the tag price, which was inclusive of taxes, the addition of VAT on discounted price amounts to overcharging and unfair trade practice. The complainant thus filed consumer complaint in the District Forum, Amritsar.
-
The petitioner contested the complaint by filing written statement, while denying the allegations of over charge or unfair trade practice on its part, it was pleaded that subject trouser was offered on 30% discount subject to payment of VAT etc. Therefore, the allegation made by the complainant that the petitioner had illegally charged VAT is without any basis.
-
On analysis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum found force in the claim of the respondent complainant. Consequently, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.97.36 i.e. excess charged from the complainant in the form of VAT. The District Forum also directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant besides Rs.1000/- against cost of litigation.
-
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal. On appreciation of the material placed on record, the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
-
We have heard Sh. S.K.Pattjoshi, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. The main thrust of his submissions are that petitioner charged VAT strictly as per the provision of State VAT Act and Legal Meteorology Act. Expanding on the argument, learned senior advocate submitted that discount of 30%...
To continue reading
Request your trial