Back
BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PATNA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President; Sh. K.P. Sinha,
Member, Smt. Kalpana Ashok, Member
M/s. AMAR MEDICAL HALL—Appellant
versus
MOTI RAM, ADVOCATE—Respondent
Appeal No. 14 of 1992 –– Decided on 28.8.1992
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Nawal Kishore Pd. Singh, Advocate.
Respondent: In person.
A medical shop owner who is not a registered dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, Sec. 26(1), is not entitled to charge sales tax on medicines sold to customers.
Headnote:
SALES TAX - REGISTRATION - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : BIHAR FINANCE ACT, SEC. 26(1) - SUMMARY : The court held that the appellant, a medical shop owner, was not entitled to charge sales tax on medicines sold to the respondent as he was not a registered dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, Sec. 26(1). The court also found that there was no evidence that the appellant had paid any sales tax to the wholesaler for the medicines purchased by him, and therefore, he was not entitled to collect any sales tax from the customer.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased two bottles of medicine from the appellant's medical shop for Rs. 28.80, while the price mentioned on each bottle was Rs. 13.50. The appellant claimed that he had charged Rs. 1.80 as sales tax on the purchase, but the respondent contended that the appellant was not a registered dealer and was not entitled to charge sales tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not a registered dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, Sec. 26(1), and therefore, he was not entitled to charge sales tax on the medicines sold to the respondent. The court also found that there was no evidence that the appellant had paid any sales tax to the wholesaler for the medicines purchased by him, and therefore, he was not entitled to collect any sales tax from the customer.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to charge sales tax on the medicines sold to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not entitled to charge sales tax on the medicines sold to the respondent as he was not a registered dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, Sec. 26(1). The court also found that there was no evidence that the appellant had paid any sales tax to the wholesaler for the medicines purchased by him, and therefore, he was not entitled to collect any sales tax from the customer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 200/- as costs to the respondent.
Mr. K.P. Sinha, Member—This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 28.1.92 holding that the appellant was to pay to the complainant — respondent a sum of Rs. 1.80 ps. as refund for excess price charged for the medicines purchased by the complainant - respondent along- with a compensation of Rs. 500/- and another sum of Rs. 50/- as cost of the suit.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant (Respondent) purchased two bottles of (20 tablets) Laviest prescribed to him, for which the appellant (opposite party before the District Forum) charged him Rs. 28.80. The price mentioned on each bottle was Rs. 13.50 and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 27/- only should have been charged for this purchase against which a sum of Rs. 28.80 was charged and paid by the complainant. For this excess charge the respondent (complainant before the District Forum) moved the District Forum for redressal of his grievance of having been overcharged. The appellant appeared and filed written statement as also examined a few other medicine shop keeper of the area. The plea of the appellant before the District Forum was that Rs. 1.80 paise was charged as Sales Tax on Rs. 27/-, the price of the medicine @ 7%. The other medicine shop keepers have also supported his version that they were all charging sales tax over and above the price mentioned on the bottle.
3. We have perused the records of the District Forum and heard both the parties. After hearing the parties and assessing the evidence of the witnesses the learned District Forum has given the finding on each of the points raised and have held that since the appellant was not a registered dealer he was not entitled to charge sales tax u/Sec. 26(1) the Bihar Finance Act. As to whether or not the shop keeper was registered dealer, the District Forum has held vide paragraph 8 of the order that in the absence of Registration Certificate as also the Register number not being given in the cash memo he could not be treated as registered dealer.
4. As a matter of fact there was no evidence before the District Forum in support of the appellant being a registered dealer. In the appeal memo, however, filed before us we find that a photostat copy of a certificate of registration has been attached. Unfortunately, however, the original was not produced even before us for our perusal, in support of his contention that he was a registered dealer. A persual of the photo-stat copy so filed shows that in this certificate the name of the dealer has been given as one Sandeep Sur. We do not know who this Shri Sandeep Sur is in that connection, Sri Prem Nath, who give evidence as the dealer of the Medical Hall had with Sri Sandeep Sur mentioned in this photo-stat has not been stated. Further it is not clear from the certificate as to for what the certificate was valid. In the photostat copy of this certificate the columns about the validity of the Renewal are completely blumed. We do not see any reason as to why this certificate in original was not produced before the District Forum when averments about the registered dealer were being made. It appears that either the photostat copy of the certificate was not valid on the date the purchase of medicine was made by the respondent or the certificate pertained to some other person than the appellant having a Medical shop of the same name. In any view of the matter since no documentary evidence was produced about the fact of registration of the appellant as registered dealer we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the District Forum that he was not a registered dealer.
5. Moreover, local taxes can be charged by any dealer over and above the mentioned price only when there is an evidence of a retailer having paid to the wholesaler the sales tax on the medicine purchased from him. There is nothing on the records to show that the appellant paid any sales tax to the wholesaler for the medicine purchased by him. Whenever such payment of sales tax ar
