Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + NAPA GST - 2020 (11) TMI NAPA This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (11) TMI 955 - NAPA - GST


Issues:
Violation of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017
Imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017

Analysis:
1. The case involved a complaint by Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent for not passing on the benefit of rate reduction to customers as required by Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) conducted an investigation and found that the Respondent had denied the benefit amounting to ?9,75,078 between 01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018, thus violating Section 171 (1).

2. The Anti-Profiteering Authority issued a notice to the Respondent to explain the findings. After hearing both parties, the Authority determined the profiteered amount as ?9,75,078 and held the Respondent in violation of Section 171 (1) as per Order No. 29/2019 dated 06.05.2019. Additionally, the Respondent was found to have committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017, warranting imposition of penalty.

3. The Respondent was subsequently issued a notice to show cause why penalty under Section 122 should not be imposed. In response, the Respondent argued against penalty imposition, stating compliance with the Authority's order demonstrated good faith and lack of mens rea for deliberate violation. However, the Authority found that the Respondent indeed failed to pass on the benefit, constituting a violation of Section 171 (1).

4. It was noted that at the time of the violation (01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018), there were no specific penalty provisions for Section 171 (1) under the CGST Act. The Authority withdrew the penalty notice issued under Section 122 (1) (i) as it did not cover the violation related to anti-profiteering. The introduction of penalty provisions under Section 171 (3A) from 01.01.2020 meant retrospective imposition was not feasible.

5. Consequently, the penalty proceedings against the Respondent were dropped, as retrospective application of the penalty provisions introduced under Section 171 (3A) was not permissible. The Authority clarified the absence of penalty provisions during the period of violation precluded retrospective penalties. The order was to be supplied to both parties, and the file was to be closed upon completion.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates