Anti-Profiteering — The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint dated 04.04.2018 was filed before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in the Respondent's project "Auric City Homes" situated in Village Bathola, Sector-82, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. The above Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price after implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and charged CST on full amount of instalments.

Held that— the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under section 122 of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.—Ashok Khatri, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. S3 Infra Reality Pvt Ltd. [2019] 09 TAXLOK.COM 047 (NAPA)