Latest GST Judgments

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

Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats and the shops being constructed by him in his Project ‘Andour Heights’ in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty.

Anti-Profiteering — It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats and the shops being constructed by him in his Project ‘Andour Heights’ in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain as to why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him. Accordingly, the notice dated 02.07.2019 vide which it was proposed to impose penalty under Section 29, 122-127 of the above Act read with Rule 21 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is withdrawn to that extent.

The Authority as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the Commissioners of CGST/SGST Haryana to monitor this order under the supervision of the DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by the Authority is passed on to all the eligible buyers. A Report in compliance of this order shall be submitted to this Authority by the Commissioners CGST/SGST Haryana through the DGAP within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order. — Sushil Kumar Jain, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Sarvpriya Securities Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 19 TAXLOK.COM 080 (NAPA)