Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 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.
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant vide his Report furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicant as well as other home buyers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Vide his above Report the DGAP had also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the buyers amounting to Rs. 9,03,44,071/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act.
The Respondent was issued notice dated 10.02.2020 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
Held that— Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 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dated 10.02.2020 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.
Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 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.
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant vide his Report furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicant as well as other home buyers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Vide his above Report the DGAP had also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the buyers amounting to Rs. 9,03,44,071/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act.
The Respondent was issued notice dated 10.02.2020 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
Held that— Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 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 10.02.2020 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.