Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The applicant DGAP concluded that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC in respect of the flats purchased by them in the project “ROF Aalayas” in Sector-102, Gurgaon, Haryana w.e.f. 01.07.2017, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act. The Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the applicants amounting to Rs. 2.47,48,549/- pertaining to the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. This Authority on 21.10.2019 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 2,47,48,549/- and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). The respondent submitted that penalty should not be imposed on him as the provisions of Section 171 (3A) have come into force from 01.01.2020 and they cannot have retrospective operation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 26.11.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn.—Sandeep Kumar, Sh Harish Kumar, Ms. Poonam Shiv, Director General Of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Nani Resorts And Floriculture Pvt. Ltd.  27 TAXLOK.COM 081 (NAPA)