V.K. Jain ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling Woodland Brand of shoes and apparels. On 10.9.2016, the complainant/respondent went to a store of the petitioner which had allegedly offered a discount of 35% on purchase of T shirt having maximum retail price of Rs. 2195/- (inclusive of taxes). According to the complainant, though the petitioner had offered a flat 35% discount on the maximum retail price (inclusive of taxes), it charged a sum of Rs. 1498/- from him whereas, the price after deducting 35% discount comes to Rs. 1426.75. The petitioner, according to the complainant had charged double VAT amount from him. It is also alleged that despite the request made by the complainant, the petitioner refused to cancel the transaction, taking a plea that the invoice had already been generated. It was alleged that the petitioner had indulged into unfair trade practice, by charging double VAT amount. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation quantified at Rs. 75,000/- besides refund of the overcharged amount of Rs. 71.35.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which denied having overcharged VAT from him. It was alleged in the written version filed by the petitioner that the scheme of Punjab VAT Act does not envisage pre-payment of taxes and seller is required to pay tax as per Sections 6, 8 and 8C of the said Act. The petitioner denied having indulged into any unfair trade practice and stated that the moment the purchaser availed the discount scheme, he was out of the declaration of MRP which serves only as the basis for calculation of the net sale consideration, subject to payment of VAT. It was further stated in the written version that the MRP was inclusive of VAT and for payment of VAT the sale consideration can be reduced by the amount of the payable tax payable by the customer. According to the petitioner, under the scheme, when discount is offered the price is determined by giving discount on the MRP indicated on the product but such price is subject to payment of VAT.
3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.5.2017, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. In Revision Petition No. 3477 of 2016, Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma, decided by this Commission on 04.01.2017, the petitioner despite offering flat 40% discount charged VAT on the price arrived at after giving the said discount. The following was the view taken by this Commission on this practice:
"The short question falling for consideration is whether having announced a discount of "FLAT* 40%" on selected merchandise, which in actual terms works out to less than 40% on the MRP, the Petitioners had indulged in unfair trade practice and/or there was any deficiency on their part in charging VAT on the discounted price of the merchandise.?
The expression "unfair trade practice", as defined in Section 2(r) of the Act is of very wide amplitude. Clause (2) of Sub-Section (r) of the Act, relevant for our purpose, reads as follow:-
"(2) permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any news-paper or otherwise, for the sale or supply at a bargain price, of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of business, and the nature of the advertisement.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of clause (2), "bargaining price" means:-
(a) a price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by reference to an ordinary price or otherwise, or
(b) a price that a person who ........