Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Joint Commissioner of State Tax Vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P (MD)No. 21646 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Joint Commissioner of State Tax Vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Madras High Court)

Introduction: In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court has issued a ruling regarding consumer complaints against the Revenue Department for the excessive imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST) by hotel managements. The court’s decision sheds light on the jurisdiction of consumer forums in such cases and clarifies the responsibilities of the Commercial Taxes Department.

Detailed Analysis: The case at hand involves a Writ of Mandamus filed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax from the Commercial Taxes Department in Tirunelveli Division. The petitioner’s contention was that consumers had initiated cases before the second respondent Consumer Forum, naming officials from the Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division as opposite parties. More than 115 such cases were pending before the second respondent at the time of the petition.

The primary argument put forth by the petitioner was that the Commercial Taxes Department does not provide any service under the Consumer Protection Act, thus making the cases against the department unjustifiable. The second respondent had previously issued an order in a case where a consumer had filed a complaint against a hotel for levying GST on the supply of curd. In this case, the Hotel Management and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax were named as opposite parties. The consumer’s petition was allowed, and both the Hotel Management and the Assistant Commissioner were held jointly or severally liable to pay Rs. 10,000 for causing distress to the customer.

The petitioner highlighted that they were executing statutory functions under the State GST Act and were not collecting any GST above the prescribed rates. They argued that if a hotel was imposing GST beyond what was prescribed in the Act, the petitioner should not be held responsible. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the cases filed by consumers against the department were beyond the Consumer Protection Act’s purview.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031