Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The DGAP vide Report dated 28.11.2018 had submitted that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to the above applicant as well as 124 other house and plot buyers who had purchased them in his Project “Eldeco County”, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The DGAP had submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the above buyers pertaining to the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act and had committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i), hence, liable for imposition of penalty. The Respondent stated that the penal provisions under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be invoked and penalty imposed on him as he has not violated any of the above provisions.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) can not be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn.—Varun Goel, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 021 (NAPA)