Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The DGAP concluded that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% in respect of the two products viz. the Nestle Munch Nuts 32 Gm. Chocolate and the Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate with effect from 15.11.2017, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1). The DGAP also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of GST rate reduction to his customers pertaining to the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). It was concluded that by this authority that the respondent had committed an offence under Section 122 (1)(i) and hence was liable for imposition of penalty. The Respondent was issued notice dated 01.01.2019 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 122(1) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be imposed on him. The Respondent vide his submissions dated 09.01.2019 stated that the penal provisions under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 133(3)(d) should not be invoked and penalty should not be imposed on him as he had accepted and paid the amount which had been determined by this Authority.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 16.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), Accordingly, the notice dated 01.01.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.—Pushpak Chauhan, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Harish Bakers & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 031 (NAPA)