Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The DGAP submitted its report after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6). An application was filed alleging profiteering by the Respondent and the DGAP found that respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction when the rate of GST was reduced from 18% to 5% in the foot wear (Shoes), as per the provisions of Section 171 (1). The DGAP submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of rate reduction to his customers amounting to Rs.6,55,307/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. The Respondent submitted that the penal provisions under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be invoked and penalty should not be imposed on him as he had accepted and deposited the entire profiteered amount.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) also cannot be imposed retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 03.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn.—Saurabh Gahoi, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Pinky Sales  28 TUD Online 031 (NAPA)