Anti-Profiteering— Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The applicant DGAP concluded that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to the buyers who had purchased flats in his Project “Auric City Homes” 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 buyers amounting to Rs. 1,48,60,874/-, 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. This Authority on 27.02.2019 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 57,76,610 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). The respondent submitted that penalty should only be imposed when there is a mensrea and deliberate attempt to violate the provisions of law and as he has complied with this Authority's Order No. 12/2019 which depicted his bonafide intentions.
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 31.08.2018 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 Accordingly, the notice issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn.—Ashok Khatri, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes Vs. S3 Infrareality Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 067 (NAPA)