Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Penalty Provisions--The DGAP found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC in respect of the flat purchased in the “Anand Vilas” project of the Respondent, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act. The DGAP further submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC amounting to Rs. 1,01,06,773/- pertaining to the period from July, 2017 to June, 2018 and had violated the provisions of Section 171(1). This Authority vide its Order No. 30/2019 dated 08.05.2019 held that the respondent committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) and hence liable for imposition of penalty. 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 penalty under Section 122 was not applicable in the present case.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that since no penalty provisions were in existence for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 15.05.2019 for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn.—Pallavi Gulati And Abhimanyu Gulati, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 039 (NAPA)