Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 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.

Anti-profiteering- The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant vide his Report furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of CGST Rules 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the above Applicant as well as other customers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Vide his above Report the DGAP had also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of rate reduction to the customers amounting to Rs. 15,861/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 and he had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act. Held that- Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 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the notice dated 01.10.2018 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.
Join Whats App Group
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Product Demo
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
whatsapp with taxlok SUBSCRIBE OUR MAGAZINE

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE