Email
Print
ShareMumbai: Every citizen of this country pays tax in some form or the other. The tax collecting authorities are high-handed and behave in an authoritarian manner. Citizens who have grievances against them have little or no avenue for justice in such a situation. Can a tax authority be dragged before a consumer court for deficiency of service even if the persons at the helm are in the wrong? No, says an order of the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Payyannur Municipality vs prof MG Mary.
Mary was forced to pay a sum of Rs90 extra while paying her house tax to the municipality, which had raised a wrong amount in her bill. In addition, she was also forced to pay penal interest for delayed payment of the amount. On appealing to the municipality, the amount alleged to be excessive was found to be due to a mistake from the billing department and the house tax was subsequently reduced to the correct amount as stated by Mary. The consumer then sought a refund for the excess amount she had paid to the municipality, but there was no response from the latter.
Mary moved the local Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for deficiency of service by the municipality. After hearing the complaint in detail, the forum found the municipality's action improper and directed it to refund the excess money collected and added litigation costs of Rs500 as compensation.
The municipality went in appeal against the forum's order. While admitting that the municipal tax had been revised and the consumer was entitled for a refund, it stated that as per the Kerala Municipalities Act the appropriate forum for such an action against the municipality was not in a consumer forum. Going through the entire case, the commission noted that the lower court had not taken the question of jurisdiction into consideration at all.
Relying on the Supreme Court's orders that tax is not a levy for services and there is no quid pro quo or direct link between the levying of a tax and services provided, the commission held that the complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she had not availed of any service against consideration.
The commission held that the forum erred in holding that Mary was a consumer and that the case fell within the ambit of the act. It added that the time lost by the consumer in litigating before the forum and commission should not be included in limiting the filing of an independent claim.
