NCDRC Affirms Non-Refundability of Statutory Dues in Consumer Dispute.


[ Court Doc ]   Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A recent appeal brought before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) of Gaurav Aggarwal Vs M/s. Universal Infrastructure, Punjab & Others., concerning the refund of statutory dues in a consumer dispute has been dismissed, upholding the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The core issue revolved around the calculation of the final settlement amount, specifically regarding the handling of service tax paid by the appellant.

The appellant had initially filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of deposits made for a flat in the “Taj Towers” project, along with interest and compensation, due to delays and non-delivery. The State Commission had initially ordered the developer (respondent) to deliver possession or refund the deposited amount with interest. Subsequently, an appeal before the NCDRC led to a modification, directing the respondent to refund the principal amount with 10% interest and litigation costs.

The crux of the dispute arose during the execution of this revised order. The appellant claimed a shortfall of Rs. 26,87,222/-, attributing it to the respondent's alleged unjust deduction of statutory dues, particularly service tax. The respondent, however, contended that all dues had been cleared, and the service tax, being a statutory obligation, was not refundable.


 

 


The State Commission, in its order dated 21.09.2021, ruled that the difference in calculations stemmed from the service tax issue. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Vijay Gupta Vs. The Estate Officer (H), GMADA, which held that statutory dues are not refundable, the Commission concluded that the decretal amount had been settled. It granted the appellant liberty to pursue further remedies if discrepancies were found after reconciling the accounts.

In the NCDRC appeal, the appellant argued that the State Commission’s order was erroneous and that the execution petition should be restored. The respondent, conversely, maintained that the State Commission’s decision was justified, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling and confirming that the principal amount, interest, and litigation costs had been paid.

The NCDRC, after careful consideration of the arguments and records, found that the sole remaining issue was the quantum of statutory dues. It noted the appellant's acknowledgment of receiving the principal amount and the interest as per the NCDRC’s earlier order.

Regarding the service tax, the NCDRC reiterated the Supreme Court’s stance in Vijay Gupta (supra), stating that statutory dues are not refundable. Consequently, the NCDRC found no merit in the appellant's claim and dismissed the appeal, upholding the State Commission's order.

This ruling clarifies the handling of statutory dues in consumer disputes, emphasizing adherence to established legal precedents. The decision underscores the importance of accurate financial calculations and the proper application of legal principles in resolving consumer grievances. No costs were awarded in this case.


Section 17, Consumer Protection Act - 1986

Section 27, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986     

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019  

Section 151., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908