2023 (9) TMI 696 - HC - GST

Lability of the GST department where the service provider charges excess GST from the customers - Customer approached the state consumer forum - Seeking to forbear the respondents to grant any relief in favour of any consumers against the petitioner's Department in Tirunelveli Division, in the Consumer Petition before them respectively - HELD THAT - The petitioner is executing the statutory function under the State GST Act. The petitioner is not collecting any GST over and above what is prescribed in the GST Act. If the Hotel Management is imposing any GST beyond the prescription of the Act, the petitioner will not be liable for the same. Therefore, the petition filed by the so-called consumer is beyond the purview of the Act and the Consumer Court is not having any jurisdiction and pass orders against the statutory authorities and against the statutory functions. The petitioner, Commercial Taxes Department is executing the statutory function under the State GST Act and the petitioner is not collecting any GST over and above what is prescribed in the GST Act. If the Hotel Management is imposing any GST beyond the prescription of the Act, the petitioner will not be liable for the same. The consumer may have right against the Hotel Management but not against the Commercial Tax Department. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum over statutory authorities, the liability of the Commercial Taxes Department under the Consumer Protection Act, and the proper parties in consumer complaints.

Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum:
The petitioner, a Joint Commissioner of State Tax, challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum over the Commercial Taxes Department. The petitioner argued that the department does not provide services within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the Consumer Forum should have examined whether the petitioner was a necessary or proper party in the consumer complaints. The Court concluded that the petitioner was neither necessary nor a proper party in the proceedings initiated against them. The Court directed the Consumer Forum to delete the name of the petitioner from the consumer complaints and pass appropriate orders.

Liability of Commercial Taxes Department:
The petitioner, the Commercial Taxes Department, contended that they are executing statutory functions under the State GST Act and are not collecting any GST beyond what is prescribed. The petitioner argued that if a hotel imposes GST beyond the Act's prescription, the department should not be held liable. The Court agreed with the petitioner's argument and held that the consumer may have a right against the hotel management but not against the Commercial Tax Department. Following a previous decision, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to refrain from entertaining any petition against the statutory authority.

Proper Parties in Consumer Complaints:
The Consumer Forum had issued an order against a consumer and an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, holding them liable to pay a sum for causing distress to a customer. The Court held that the proceedings against the Assistant Commissioner were unnecessary as the consumer's complaint should have been directed towards the hotel management. The Court emphasized that the Consumer Forum should have entertained applications to delete the names of statutory authorities from consumer complaints if they were not necessary or proper parties. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Consumer Forum to delete the name of the petitioner from the consumer complaints and pass appropriate orders.