Latest GST Judgments

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

The penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.

Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 with the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Antiprofiteering alleging profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by the Respondent despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 by way of not making a commensurate reduction in price, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent has denied the benefit of GST rate reduction to the customers of his products w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Held that— a perusal of the provisions of Section 171 (3A) under which penalty has been prescribed for the above violation shows that it has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019 when the Respondent had committed the above violation and hence, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, notice for the imposition of penalty is not required to be issued to the Respondent.
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