RATNAPRABHA MOTORS vs VASANT D.SALUNKE

THESE are three Revision Petitions arising out of a common order of 3rd September, 1993 passed by the State Commission, Maharashtra in Appeals No. 160/93,467, 92 and 47/93.

BY this Order, the State Commission confirmed the orders of the District Forum in all these cases. As noticed by the State Commission in its order the question that needs to be considered is "as to who is responsible to pay the entry tax on the vehicles imported into Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act., 1987, (hereinafter referred as the ''Sales Tax Act,)". The Revision Petitioner, M/s. Ratnaprabha Motors, is a local dealer at Aurangabad having agency for the sale of L.M.L. Vespa Scooters. The Respondents in these Revision Petitions had purchased scooters through the agency of the Revision Petitioner M/s. Ratnaprabha Motors.

AFTER the sale and the transfer of the scooters, the Regional Transport Officer, Aurangabad, demanded from each purchaser the entry tax and pending payment of the tax, he withheld their registration books.

THE Respondents refused to pay the entry tax on the ground that the same was not the liability of the respondent''s consumers. Later, they filed complaints before the Consumer Forum for non-payment of the entry tax by the scooter Dealer and alleging that shifting the liability of the sale to the Respondents purchasers was deficiency in service on the part of M/s. Ratnaprabha Motors. These complaints led to the above findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. The entire question centeres round the term "importer" as defined in the Sales Tax Act, Maharashtra. The State Commission held that the complainants were not "importers" and, therefore, they were not liable to pay the entry tax. Its findings were that the scooters in question were brought into the local areas of Maharashtra by the Dealer M/s. Ratnaprabha Motors, that the complainants cannot be deemed to be importers as defined under the Sales Tax Act and that the incidence of tax under the Act is on the importer only.

IN this Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner has pointed out that the manufacturer, L.M.L. Vespa, had entered into direct contracts with the Respondent purchasers for sale of the scooters: the sale deeds as also the invoices were in the name of the purchasers; "all forms and documents were in the name of purchasers/customers and not in the name of the petitioner." The sale letter was issued by the manufacturer, L.M.L. Ltd., in favour of the Respondents. In the form for registration of the vehicle, the Revision Petitioner is not shown as the person who sold the vehicles. The Sales Tax Commissioner had also called upon the Respondents in May, 1991 to make payment of the entry tax. It is contended that at no stage the vehicles were transferred in the name of the Revision Petitioners.

IT would appear from the facts above that the dealer was only an agent of L.M.L. Vespa and it was the L.M.L. who sold the scooters to the Respondents-complainants and the local dealer was concerned only with servicing of the scooters after sale. It is significant that the R.T.O. demanded the tax from each purchaser and Sales Tax Commissioner also held the Respondent/ purchasers as liable. We do not see how the State Commission held the dealer as liable to pay the entry tax. The question is also regarding levy and recovery of entry tax: who is to bear the incidence of the tax under the act and whether the Dealer can pass on the tax to the purchaser of goods? Obviously this does not concern rendering of any service for consideration; shifting of tax liability, right or wrong, is not a deficiency in service.

WE , therefore, allow the Revision Petitions and set aside the orders passed by the State Commission as having been passed in wrongful exercise of jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no order as to costs.