Anti-Profiteering — The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 21.01.2019 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the purchase of Flat no. A-802 in Respondent’s project “Azea Botanica”, situated at Plot No. 11/GH/8, Vrindavan Yojana No.3, Sector-11, Lucknow and had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the prices of the apartment purchased by him, on implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Held that— the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his Project ‘AzeaBotanica’ in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus apparently committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section. Accordingly, a notice be issued to him directing him to explain as to why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him. — Sh. Naresh K. Khetan, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Azeagaia Development Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 24 TAXLOK.COM 007 (NAPA)