The Joint Commissioner Of State Tax vs. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, following a previous decision in W.P.(MD)Nos.21614 of 2019 and batch. The Court held that the petitioner, being a statutory authority executing its functions under the State GST Act, is neither a necessary nor a proper party in consumer complaints filed against hotels for alleged deficiencies in service related to GST collection. The Court reasoned that if a hotel imposes GST beyond the prescription of the Act, the hotel management is liable, not the Commercial Taxes Department. The consumer may have a right against the hotel management but not against the Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, the Consumer Forum ought to have examined whether the petitioner was a necessary or proper party and should have entertained applications for deleting the department's name. The Court directed the respondents (Consumer Forums) to forebear from entertaining any petition against the statutory authority. The previous judgment had directed the deletion of the petitioner's name from the consumer complaints and passing appropriate orders on the complaints before it.

Facts

The petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent consumer forums from granting relief against the department. The petitioner contended that its department performs statutory functions under the State GST Act and does not provide services as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Over 115 cases were filed by consumers against officials of the Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division. A specific instance involved a consumer filing a complaint against Hotel Annapoorna and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax for levying GST on curd. The Consumer Forum allowed the complaint, holding both the hotel and the Assistant Commissioner jointly and severally liable for Rs. 10,000/- for causing distress. The petitioner argued that if a hotel imposes GST beyond the Act's prescription, the department should not be held liable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints against statutory authorities performing their duties under the State GST Act, particularly when the alleged deficiency of service relates to the collection of GST by a third party (hotel)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Commercial Taxes Department, acting as a statutory authority, can be considered a "service provider" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, making it liable for alleged deficiencies in service related to GST collection by hotels? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that its department performs statutory functions and does not provide services within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They contended that if a hotel collects GST in excess of what is prescribed by the GST Act, the department is not liable, and the consumer's grievance should be against the hotel management. The petitioner asserted that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to pass orders against statutory authorities and their statutory functions. They relied on a previous High Court decision in W.P.(MD)Nos.21614 of 2019 and batch. Revenue/State's arguments: No appearance was made by the respondents.