Full Judgment
2. The short question which has been raised in this complaint is that the respondent has not issued 'H' form to the complainant for the transaction which took place on 1.12.1995 and in respect of the said transaction, the Sales Tax Authorities have imposed a tax of Rs. 14,817.60. The complainant has claimed this amount as well as the following amount of compensation : 3. The total amount has been claimed as Rs. 26,017.60. The respondent has filed a reply wherein it is stated that no unfair trade practice has been committed by the respondent and the complaint does not fall within the provisions of Section 36A of the MRTP Act. The respondent also submitted that 'H' form was supplied to the complainant by communication dated 15th July, 1996, which has been placed on record.
4. We have heard Shri Sharma, representative of the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The transaction allegedly took place in the year 1995 and this complaint was received in the Commission on 29th July, 1999. We may refer to paragraph 4 of the preliminary objections taken by the respondent as follows : "4. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the act of the respondent as alleged is by no stretch of imagination can be termed as 'unfair trade practices' as defined in the Section 36A of the MRTP Act, 1969. Without admitting it is stated that the act complained of, at the most can be an honest or bonafide error or omission. It is stated that the respondent had sent the 'H' form by its letter dated 15.7.1996. It had also filed and declared the details of the particular transaction with the Sales Tax Department/ office in their return." 5. Similarly, it has been contended by the respondent in paragraph 11 on merits as follows : "11. The complaint is not maintainable as no public interest is involved." 6. The law of limitation is well-settled as laid down in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1994 dated 25.1.2000 reported as C (2000) SLT 40=I (2000) CPJ 13 (SC)=(2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 628, in the matter of Corporation Bank and Anr.
v. Navin J. Shah, The present compensation application has been lodged in this Commission more than three years after the final cause of action took place. The applicant has also availed of remedy before the Sales Tax Department in accordance with the law. Therefore, it will not be open for it to take recourse to a remedy in this Commission at a later stage. As the plea of compensation is barred by limitation, we find no ground to entertain this compensation application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.