9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 31.03.2018 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the notice dated 03.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.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. 51/2020 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2020 - DR. B. N. SHARMA. CHAIRMAN, SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER Present:- 1. None for the Applicants. 2. None for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 30.09.2018 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). 3. It was also held that the Respondent had denied the benefit of reduction in the tax rate by not reducing the prices of the product commensurately and had also compelled the buyers to pay more price and the GST on the additional amount realised from them between the period from 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 and therefore, he had apparently committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence, he was liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section. 4. The Respondent was issued notice dated 03.07.2019 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 122 read with Rule 133 (3) (d) shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 invoices 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 for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act. 8. It is further revealed that vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
