9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 benefit of rate reduction and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. 2. This Authority after careful consideration of the Report dated 11.01.2019 had issued notice dated 22.01.2019 to the Respondent to show cause why the Report furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) should not be fixed. After hearing both the parties at length this Authority vide its Order No. 28/2019 dated 02.05.2019 = 2019 (5) TMI 359 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY had determined the profiteered amount as ₹ 13,973/- as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been revealed that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the above Applicant as well as other Customers for the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 7. It is also revealed 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 invoices while charging excess considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
