Latest GST Judgments

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

Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) can not be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.

Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Penalty Provisions--The DGAP found that the Respondent had not passed the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax of GST w.e.f. 15.11.2017 from 28% to 18% in respect of his supplies of “luggage trolley bag/suitcases”, namely "Tropic 45 Weekender Black” and “Neolite Strolly 53 360 (VIP) FIR" in terms of Section 171 (1) of the Act. DGAP further submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of GST rate reduction amounting to Rs. 18,887/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 and had indulged in profiteering and violated the provisions of Section 171 (1). This Authority vide its Order No. 31/2019 dated 10.05.2019 had determined the profiteered amount as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). 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 paid alongwith applicable interest thereon.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) can not be imposed. Accordingly, the notice dated 13.06.2019 for imposition of penalty is hereby withdrawn.—Kerala State Screening Committee on Anit-Profiteeing Vs. Vtwo Ventures [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 041 (NAPA)