Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Penalty Provisions--The DGAP found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC in respect of the flat purchased by him in the “Runwal My City” project, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act, The DGAP submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC amounting to Rs. 3,20,49,507/- pertaining to the period from July, 2017 to June, 2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). This Authority vide its Order No. 56/2019 dated 15.11.2019 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 3,20,49,507/- and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). Therefore, he apparently committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) and hence was liable for imposition of penalty. The Respondent submitted that the penal provisions under Section 171 (3A) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be invoked, as the Central Government vide Notification No. 01/2020- Central Tax dated 01.01.2020 has appointed the 1st day January, 2020 as the date on which the provisions shall come into force.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that since no penalty provisions were in existence for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.03.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 18.12.2019 for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn.—Diwakar Bansal, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Horizon Projects Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 040 (NAPA)