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. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.

Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The DGAP vide Report dated 21.05.2019, under Rule 129 (6) submitted that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC in respect of the flats in his Project “Synera”, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1). The DGAP submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the Applicant and other buyers amounting to Rs.1,42,06,267/-, for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the respondent has passed the benefit of the additional ITC to his customers along with the Applicant and the same has been verified by the Jurisdictional Officer. Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 27.12.2019 for imposition of penalty under is withdrawn.