Since, no 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) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The DGAP vide Report submitted that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the Applicant as well as other home buyers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act. The DGAP also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the above buyers amounting to Rs.38,29,753/-, 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). Therefore, the Respondent had committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the Act, 2017 and hence, he was liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of additional ITC and hence, has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1). Since, no 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 cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 01.04.2019 for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is withdrawn.
Since, no 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) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The DGAP vide Report submitted that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the Applicant as well as other home buyers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act. The DGAP also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the above buyers amounting to Rs.38,29,753/-, 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). Therefore, the Respondent had committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the Act, 2017 and hence, he was liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of additional ITC and hence, has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1). Since, no 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 cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 01.04.2019 for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is withdrawn.