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 flat purchased by him in the “One Park Avenue” 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.1,27,84,694/- pertaining to the period from July, 2017 to September, 2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. This Authority on 05.11.2019 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs.1,27,84,694/- and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). The respondent submitted that provisions of Section 171 (3A) inserted vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 are effective prospectively 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 Accordingly, the notice issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn.—Ratish Nair, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Man Realty Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 074 (NAPA)