Hyatt Ahmedabad has been ordered to pay a customer ₹4,040 after the Ahmedabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that the hotel had improperly collected a service charge and part of the GST amount on two coffees, according to a report by Gujarat Samachar.
The commission directed the hotel to refund ₹40.50, comprising ₹34.50 collected as a service charge and ₹6 identified as excess GST, along with 9% annual interest. It also awarded ₹2,000 for the customer’s alleged mental harassment and ₹2,000 towards legal expenses. The amount has to be paid within 30 days, the report said.
The complaint was filed by Rohit Patel, a resident of Saptak Bungalows on Science City Road, who visited the Hyatt hotel in Vastrapur on 11 September 2025. He had ordered two coffees. The bill for the items was ₹854, while the hotel additionally charged ₹62 as GST and ₹34.50 as a service charge, according to the report.
Patel challenged the charges before the Ahmedabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, arguing that the hotel had collected amounts improperly. The commission reportedly issued notice to the hotel, but no representative appeared during the proceedings. The matter was therefore heard ex parte, meaning the commission proceeded in the absence of the hotel’s representative.
In reaching its decision, the commission assessed the evidence submitted by the complainant and referred to a Delhi High Court judgment concerning the collection of service charges by hotels and restaurants. It held that ₹34.50 collected as service charge and ₹6 in GST should be returned to the customer with 9% interest.
The commission also awarded compensation for mental harassment and legal costs. The combined amount ordered under these heads was ₹4,000, taking the total payment directed against the hotel to ₹4,040 when the refund of ₹40.50 is included.
Patel had additionally sought an order requiring the hotel to deposit ₹1 lakh in a consumer welfare fund. The commission declined that request. Under Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer commission can direct such a payment when a large number of consumers have suffered loss. In this case, however, the commission found that there was no reliable evidence showing how many customers had previously been charged in the same manner or how many people had been affected.
The order places the immediate obligation on the hotel to refund the disputed amount with interest and pay the compensation and legal costs within the stipulated 30-day period. The report did not state whether the hotel plans to challenge the decision or provide details of any broader billing review by the hotel.
