9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Penalty - 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the notice dated 11.03.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped. - Case No. 49/2020 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2020 - DR. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J.C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER Present:- 1. None for the Applicants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 57.76,610 {1,48,60,874-9084264 (already passed on)} as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 pertaining to the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). 3. During the course of the hearing therefore, it was held that the Respondent had not only collected extra amount on account of price of the flats from his customers but he had also compelled them to pay more GST on the additional amount realised from them between the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and therefore, he had apparently committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence, he was liable for impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led from the perusal of the CGST Act and the Rules framed under it that no penalty had been prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act, therefore, the Respondent was issued show cause notice to state why penalty should not be imposed on him for violation of the above provisions as per Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act as he had apparently issued incorrect or false invoice while charging excess consideration and GST from the buyers. However, from the perusal of Section 122 (1) (i) it is clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
