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 31.01.2018 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) CGST Rules 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 reduction in the rate of tax to the above Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the product “Vaseline VTM 400 ml”, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Held that- Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 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the notice dated 13.09.2018 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.