Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 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.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The Applicant DGAP 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 Input Tax Credit in respect of the flat purchased by him in the “Laurel Heights” project of the Respondent on introduction of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent had denied the benefit of input tax credit to the above Applicant and other buyers amounting to Rs. 99,20,246/- pertaining to the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171. The respondent has not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to his buyers who had purchased flats in his project ‘Laurel Heights’ w.e.f 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The authority observed that no penalty had been prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1).
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 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the notice dated 18.06.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.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 31.08.2018 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.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – The Applicant DGAP 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 Input Tax Credit in respect of the flat purchased by him in the “Laurel Heights” project of the Respondent on introduction of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent had denied the benefit of input tax credit to the above Applicant and other buyers amounting to Rs. 99,20,246/- pertaining to the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171. The respondent has not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to his buyers who had purchased flats in his project ‘Laurel Heights’ w.e.f 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The authority observed that no penalty had been prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1).
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 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 18.06.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.