Passage of benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in price under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - reinvestigation and recomputation of profiteering under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - treatment of multiple RERA-registered project blocks for profiteering computation - verification of discrepancies between ITC and turnover figures in statutory returnsPassage of benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in price under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the Respondent had contravened Section 171 by not passing on additional ITC benefit and whether the profiteered amount was discharged to eligible recipients. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP's investigation found that post-GST the Respondent enjoyed additional ITC of 0.17% of taxable turnover and had not passed on that benefit, resulting in an identified profiteering amount of Rs. 1,54,269 (inclusive of GST) for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. The DGAP also recorded that the Respondent subsequently effected payments claimed to discharge the profiteered amount and interest. The DGAP's verification report noted bank entries confirming disbursement of Rs. 1,54,269 and interest of Rs. 18,595 to the eligible homebuyers as per the DGAP's Annexure. The Authority has examined the DGAP's findings and the verification of payment but has not treated the DGAP's original computation as finally conclusive for the entire project for reasons set out separately. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14]DGAP's finding of a profiteering amount and its verification that the Respondent paid that amount and interest to identified recipients is recorded, but this does not conclude the matter for the whole project.Treatment of multiple RERA-registered project blocks for profiteering computation - reinvestigation and recomputation of profiteering under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the DGAP's investigation confined to Block 'K' is sufficient or a fresh investigation across all RERA-registered blocks of the project is required. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that the promoter obtained separate RERA registrations for four towers/blocks and that RERA requires maintenance of separate project escrow accounts with withdrawals linked to percentage completion certified by professionals. The DGAP's Report covered only Block 'K' while the Respondent maintained a common ITC register and filed common GST returns for the entire project. Given this, the Authority concluded that non-compliance with RERA escrow/accounting requirements could render the entire development a single project for profiteering computation. Consequently, the Authority directed a reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) to determine whether the benefit of ITC has been passed to buyers of the other three blocks and to recompute profiteering across the project. [Paras 16, 17, 19, 20]DGAP directed to reinvestigate and recompute the quantum of profiteering across all blocks/towers of the project, taking into account compliance with RERA escrow/accounting requirements.Verification of discrepancies between ITC and turnover figures in statutory returns - reinvestigation and recomputation of profiteering under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the variations between figures adopted by the DGAP and those in the Respondent's statutory returns require further scrutiny and adjustment of the profiteering computation. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed significant variations between the ITC and turnover figures used in the DGAP's Table-B and the figures in the Respondent's filed GST and earlier returns for the periods April 2016 to June 2017 and July 2017 to September 2019. These discrepancies affect the base used to calculate additional ITC and resulting profiteering. The Authority therefore found it necessary that the DGAP re-examine the statutory return figures, reconcile discrepancies and, if required, recompute the benefit and profiteering amounts in a fresh investigation under Rule 129/133(4). [Paras 18, 19, 20]DGAP directed to investigate and reconcile variations in ITC and turnover figures in statutory returns and recompute profiteering accordingly.Final Conclusion: The Authority records the DGAP's original finding of profiteering and its verification of payment to identified recipients but has not accepted the DGAP's computation as final. In view of separate RERA registrations for the project's blocks and material discrepancies in ITC/turnover figures, the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate under Rule 133(4) (and Rule 129(6) procedures) to reconcile returns, determine whether benefits were passed across all blocks, recompute the quantum of profiteering for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, and submit a fresh report; the Respondent must assist and supply required documents.

Corrigendum to Order - Anti-Profiteering - pass-on to eligible buyers - Consumer Welfare FundCorrigendum to Order - pass-on to eligible buyers - Consumer Welfare Fund - Correction of the wording in Paragraph 29 of Order No.81/2020 dated 10.12.2020 so as to alter the directed mode of relief from deposit in Consumer Welfare Funds to passing on to eligible buyers. - HELD THAT: - The Authority, after considering Paragraph 29 of its Order dated 10.12.2020, has issued a corrigendum substituting the 5th and 6th lines on page 26. The original text directing that amounts be "deposited in the CWFs of the Central and the Haryana State Government as per the details given above" is replaced with text directing that the amounts be "passed on to all the eligible buyers." The corrigendum expressly amends the operative wording of Paragraph 29 without purporting to vary any other part of the Order. [Paras 29]Paragraph 29 of Order No.81/2020 dated 10.12.2020 is corrected so that the specified lines shall read that the amounts are to be passed on to all eligible buyers instead of being deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds.Final Conclusion: A corrigendum to Order No.81/2020 dated 10.12.2020 has been issued amending Paragraph 29 to direct that the amounts be passed on to all eligible buyers in place of deposit into the Consumer Welfare Funds.

Non passing of benefit of additional input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty under sub section 171(3A) and prohibition of retrospective imposition - commencement of amendment by Notification No. 01/2020 Central Tax dated 01.01.2020Non passing of benefit of additional input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Respondent had violated the obligation to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit and had profiteered during the specified period. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's investigation report and the submissions and material placed before it, including verification of payments made to affected buyers. On review, it was revealed that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the purchaser and other homebuyers in the project 'Navkar Darshan' for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. The Authority therefore affirmed that the Respondent had contravened Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and had profiteered in respect of that period, consistent with the findings recorded in the earlier order determining the profiteered amount. [Paras 2, 7]The Respondent is held to have violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of additional ITC for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018.Penalty under sub section 171(3A) and prohibition of retrospective imposition - commencement of amendment by Notification No. 01/2020 Central Tax dated 01.01.2020 - Whether penalty under newly inserted sub section 171(3A) could be imposed for violations occurring prior to its commencement. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that sub section 171(3A) was added by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and brought into effect from 01.01.2020 by Notification No. 01/2020 Central Tax. Because no penalty provision under Section 171 existed for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the contravention occurred, the Authority held that the penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the notice issued for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 8, 9]Penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively for violations committed between 01.07.2017 and 31.12.2018; the show cause notice for penalty is withdrawn and penalty proceedings are dropped.Final Conclusion: The Authority confirmed that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC and had profiteered for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, but held that penalty under newly inserted Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively and accordingly withdrew the penalty notice and dropped the penalty proceedings.

Non-passing of benefit of additional Input Tax Credit - Profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - Penalty for violation of Section 171(1) under Section 171(3A) - Non-retrospectivity of penal provision - Temporal operation of tax penal provisionsNon-passing of benefit of additional Input Tax Credit - Profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to buyers in the project "Fusion Homes" for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018, and thereby indulged in profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's investigation report and the parties' submissions, and recorded that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to the complainant and other homebuyers in the specified period. This finding is in continuation of the Authority's earlier determination accepting the DGAP's report and fixing the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018. The material on record therefore supports the conclusion that the Respondent violated the mandate of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act by appropriating the benefit instead of passing it to recipients. [Paras 2, 6]Finding of violation of Section 171(1) affirmed for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018; profiteering established.Penalty for violation of Section 171(1) under Section 171(3A) - Non-retrospectivity of penal provision - Temporal operation of tax penal provisions - Penalty under the provision inserted as Section 171(3A) could not be imposed for conduct occurring between 01.07.2017 and 30.09.2018 because the provision was introduced with effect from 01.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the statutory scheme and the Notification implementing the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 which inserted sub-section 171(3A) effective 01.01.2020. As no penalty provision existed at the time the Respondent committed the violation (01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018), imposing the newly introduced penal provision retrospectively would be impermissible. Consequently, the notice seeking imposition of penalty under the newly inserted provision was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 7, 8]Penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) withdrawn and dropped on the ground of non-retrospectivity; no penalty imposed for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018.Final Conclusion: The Authority upheld that the Respondent profiteered by not passing on additional ITC to homebuyers for 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018; however, penalty under the provision inserted as Section 171(3A) (effective 01.01.2020) cannot be imposed retrospectively, and the penalty proceedings are withdrawn and dropped.

Commensurate reduction in prices - passing on the benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - denial of input tax credit impact ratio - no netting off / zeroing of benefits - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - interest at 18% on profiteered amountCommensurate reduction in prices - passing on the benefit of input tax credit - The Respondent did not pass on the commensurate benefit of the reduction in GST rate to his customers in respect of certain items supplied. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's comparison of average pre-rate-reduction base prices with post-rate-reduction actual base prices (pre-period averages taken from 01.07.2017-31.10.2017 / 01.11.2017-14.11.2017 as applicable). It held that the statutory obligation under Section 171(1) required any reduction in rate or benefit of ITC to be passed by way of a commensurate monetary reduction in price. The DGAP computed the ratio of ITC to net taxable turnover (8.85%) to determine the permissible increase in base prices to offset denial of ITC; for 168 items the post-reduction base prices exceeded that permissible impact and thus the cum-tax price paid by consumers was not reduced commensurately. The Authority found the DGAP's methodology of item wise invoice comparison and use of representative pre reduction averages to be correct, rejecting the respondent's contentions on discounts, timing of price revisions, and MRP-based exclusions. [Paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 28]Profiteering established: the Respondent failed to pass on the commensurate benefit on specified items for the investigation period.Anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - denial of input tax credit impact ratio - no netting off / zeroing of benefits - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - interest at 18% on profiteered amount - Quantification of profiteering and remedial directions under Section 171 and the Rules. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the DGAP's computations (Annexure-12), the Authority accepted the net higher sale realization due to increased base prices (after accounting for the impact of denial of ITC) as Rs. 6,66,700 (inclusive of GST) for the period 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. The Authority rejected the respondent's arguments for netting off negative entries, treating them as inapplicable because Section 171 requires benefit to be passed on each supply to each recipient and does not permit cross-subsidisation or netting across supplies. It also rejected contentions on time-bar and MRP exclusions, and held that the GST element on excess base price is part of the benefit denied and cannot be recovered from the Government but must be deposited per Rule 133. Consequential directions were issued for reduction of prices, deposit of the profiteered amount in equal parts into the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds, and payment of interest at 18% from dates of realization until deposit, with monitoring by the concerned Commissioners. [Paras 33, 34, 36, 38, 39]Profiteered amount fixed at Rs. 6,66,700 (inclusive of GST); Respondent directed to reduce prices commensurately, deposit Rs. 6,66,700 in equal parts into Central and Maharashtra State Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest, and compliance to be monitored by CGST/SGST Commissioners.Final Conclusion: The Authority upholds the DGAP report: the Respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction, profiteering quantified at Rs. 6,66,700 (inclusive of GST) for 15.11.2017-31.03.2019, with directions to reduce prices, deposit the amount (with interest) into the Consumer Welfare Funds, and for statutory monitoring and recovery if necessary.

Anti profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - input tax credit benefit and commensurate reduction in price - provisional input tax credit for under construction units and reversal under Section 17 - individual entitlement of each recipient to commensurate benefit - interest on profiteered amount - remand for comprehensive verification at issuance of occupancy/ completion certificateAnti profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - input tax credit benefit and commensurate reduction in price - Whether the Respondent violated Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of additional input tax credit to homebuyers commensurately for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's computation showing an increase in the ratio of ITC to turnover from 2.21% (pre GST) to 5.38% (post GST), i.e. an additional ITC benefit of 3.17% of turnover for the period under investigation. Applying the statutory principle that additional ITC must be passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price, the Authority found that the Respondent had not passed on the full benefit to his homebuyers. The contention that overall excess benefit passed to some buyers could be netted off against shortfall to others was rejected because Section 171 applies to each supply and entitles each recipient individually to the commensurate benefit; no statutory provision permits inter recipient adjustment. On this basis the Authority concluded there was a contravention of Section 171(1). [Paras 12, 13, 25]Contravention of Section 171 established; Respondent failed to pass on the full ITC benefit to homebuyers for 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019.Quantification of profiteering - input tax credit benefit and commensurate reduction in price - The quantum of benefit found to be due and the specific shortfall to be disgorged for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP quantified total profiteering for the investigation period at the aggregate level and compared actual benefits passed on by the Respondent to the commensurate benefit payable to each homebuyer. The DGAP's computations produced a total amount required to be passed on of Rs. 2,71,11,917 (inclusive of GST) and established that the Respondent had already passed on Rs. 2,67,88,794 (inclusive of GST). The shortfall of Rs. 7,14,837 related to 20 homebuyers was identified from itemised reconciliation between the requisite benefit and amounts actually passed on. The Authority accepted the DGAP's quantification and directed payment of the shortfall to the specified homebuyers within three months. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 26]Respondent directed to pass on the remaining ITC benefit of Rs. 7,14,837 (inclusive of GST) to the 20 identified homebuyers within three months.Individual entitlement of each recipient to commensurate benefit - Whether excess benefit passed to some homebuyers can be adjusted against shortfall to others. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered and rejected the Respondent's plea for adjustment. It held that anti profiteering obligations under Section 171 apply to each supply and each recipient is separately entitled to the commensurate benefit arising from additional ITC availability. Allowing adjustment would deprive particular recipients of their statutory entitlement and is contrary to legislative intent; the statute contains no provision authorising cross adjustment between recipients. [Paras 25]Adjustment claim rejected; excess benefit to some buyers cannot be set off against shortfall to others.Interest on profiteered amount - Whether interest is payable on the profiteered amount and the period for payment of interest. - HELD THAT: - Noting that the Respondent had used the additional consideration in his business and had not paid interest, the Authority applied Section 171(1) read with Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules and directed payment of applicable interest on the profiteered amounts from the date of receipt of the additional consideration until payment is made to each buyer. The DGAP was directed to ensure payment of interest and to report compliance; failure to pay would permit recovery by the Commissioners. [Paras 27]Interest at the applicable rate directed to be paid to eligible homebuyers from date of receipt of additional consideration until amount is paid; DGAP to ensure compliance and report.Provisional input tax credit for under construction units and reversal under Section 17 - remand for comprehensive verification at issuance of occupancy/ completion certificate - Whether further verification/investigation is required when the project is completed and occupancy/ completion certificate is issued. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recognised that ITC in respect of under construction units is provisional and may require adjustment on completion (and that unsold units may require reversal under Section 17). Since the project construction was incomplete and additional ITC may accrue subsequently, the Authority ordered that the DGAP carry out a comprehensive investigation of the project from the perspective of Section 171 at the time of issuance of the occupancy/completion certificate to determine the final additional ITC to be passed on. [Paras 28]Matters remanded for comprehensive verification by DGAP at the time of issue of occupancy/completion certificate.Final Conclusion: The Authority upheld the DGAP's finding of violation of Section 171 for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019, directed the Respondent to pay the outstanding ITC benefit of Rs. 7,14,837 to the 20 identified homebuyers within three months, ordered payment of applicable interest to eligible buyers, and required DGAP to undertake a comprehensive verification of the project at issuance of the occupancy/completion certificate; enforcement and deposit into Government Consumer Welfare Funds to be supervised by the Commissioners.

Passing on of benefit of input tax credit - reduction in rate of tax - Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - ongoing project / project commencement date for applicability of anti-profiteering - works contract in real estate and applicability of anti-profiteeringReduction in rate of tax - passing on of benefit of input tax credit - Whether there was a reduction in the rate of tax on the construction services in respect of the subject project that required passing on to the buyer. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the chronology and payments recorded in the ledger pertaining to the flat sold to Applicant No.1 and the timeline of events relating to the project. Although GST rates changed during the investigation period, the Authority concluded on the factual matrix that the project commenced after the introduction of GST and there was no basis to compare any pre-GST and post-GST prices for the same project. In consequence, the claim that a reduction in the rate of tax required a commensurate price adjustment for the applicant was not established on the material before the Authority. The determinative finding is that, for the impugned project, there was no operative circumstance entitling the applicant to a price recalibration on account of a reduction in rate of tax. [Paras 11, 12, 21, 22]No reduction in rate of tax was found to require passing on to the applicant in the circumstances of this project.Passing on of benefit of input tax credit - ongoing project / project commencement date for applicability of anti-profiteering - Whether the respondent had benefited from additional input tax credit (ITC) after introduction of GST and failed to pass such benefit to Applicant No.1. - HELD THAT: - The Authority analysed the benchmark events (licence, RERA registration, environment clearance, start of construction, draw of lots and builder-buyer agreement) and found that key activities relevant to the project's execution occurred after 01.07.2017. Because the project was not under execution in the pre-GST period, there was no comparable pre-GST ITC position against which to measure an additional benefit accruing to the respondent. Thus, there was no evidentiary foundation to conclude that the respondent obtained an additional ITC benefit that remained unpassed to the buyer. The Authority emphasised that absent a basis for comparison of ITC availability before and after 01.07.2017, the obligation to pass on additional ITC could not arise. [Paras 10, 16, 18, 21]No additional benefit of ITC to the respondent was established; therefore there was no unpassed ITC benefit to be passed to Applicant No.1.Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - works contract in real estate and applicability of anti-profiteering - Whether the respondent contravened the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of reduced tax or additional ITC to Applicant No.1. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(1) requires that a reduction in rate of tax or benefit of ITC be passed on to the recipient by way of a commensurate reduction in price. Applying the statutory test to the established facts - namely that the project commenced post-GST and there was no demonstrable additional ITC or applicable rate-reduction obligation vis-a -vis Applicant No.1 - the Authority held that the statutory condition for invoking Section 171(1) was not fulfilled. The Authority therefore found no contravention of Section 171(1) on the part of the respondent and dismissed the application. [Paras 13, 21, 22, 23]The respondent did not contravene Section 171(1); the application alleging profiteering is dismissed.Final Conclusion: On the material and chronology of events the Authority concluded that the impugned project was commenced after introduction of GST; no additional ITC benefit or applicable rate-reduction obligation was established vis-a -vis the applicant; accordingly Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not attracted and the application alleging profiteering is dismissed.

Anti-profiteering - Commensurate reduction in prices - Benefit of input tax credit - Denial of input tax credit ratio - Method of computation of profiteering - Interpretation of Section 171 (Anti-Profiteering Measure) - Deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - Penalty under Section 171(3A) - non-retrospective application - Constitution of National Anti-Profiteering Authority and requirement of judicial memberCommensurate reduction in prices - Anti-profiteering - Interpretation of Section 171 (Anti-Profiteering Measure) - Whether the respondent passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST (from 18% to 5%) and denial of input tax credit to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices for the period 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found on the material (DGAP report, price-lists and invoices) that although the output GST rate was reduced w.e.f. 15.11.2017 (with denial of ITC), the respondent increased base prices across a large number of SKUs so that customers continued to pay the same (or higher) total price. The DGAP computed the ratio of denial of ITC to net outward taxable turnover for July-October 2017 as 9.11% and compared pre and post rate reduction average base prices (Annexures 32 to 36). The Authority accepted DGAP's approach that Section 171 requires passing on the tax/ITC benefit by commensurate reduction in prices to each recipient and that mere charging the reduced GST rate did not, by itself, discharge that obligation where base prices were increased contemporaneously. On these findings the Authority concluded the respondent did not pass on the benefit under Section 171(1). [Paras 32, 139, 140]Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of rate reduction and denial of ITC to recipients for 15.11.2017-31.01.2018; Section 171 obliges commensurate reduction in prices and DGAP's product wise comparison was accepted.Denial of input tax credit ratio - Method of computation of profiteering - Anti-profiteering - Amount of profiteering and consequential directions. - HELD THAT: - On DGAP's computations (item wise comparison of pre and post rate reduction prices, application of the computed ITC denial ratio and quantification in Annexure 37), the Authority accepted the DGAP figure of net higher realisation and determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 7,49,27,786 for supplies in the ten States listed. The Authority directed the respondent to (a) reduce prices commensurately for the impacted products, and (b) deposit 50% of the profiteered amount into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the remaining 50% into the State CWFs of the ten States, together with interest at 18% from the dates the amounts were realised until deposit, within three months; the appropriate Commissioners were directed to ensure recovery/reporting. [Paras 139, 140, 141, 142]Profiteered amount fixed at Rs. 7,49,27,786; respondent directed to effect commensurate price reduction and deposit the quantified amount with interest into central/state Consumer Welfare Funds; compliance to be monitored by Commissioners CGST/SGST.Penalty under Section 171(3A) - non-retrospective application - Anti-profiteering - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for the respondent's conduct during 15.11.2017-31.01.2018. - HELD THAT: - Although the Authority found that the respondent had profiteered in contravention of Section 171(1), it noted that penal provision Section 171(3A) (ten percent of the amount profiteered) was inserted only w.e.f. 01.01.2020 by the Finance Act, 2019. The alleged contravention occurred in 2017-2018; therefore the penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively. Accordingly, the Authority did not issue a show cause notice for that penalty. [Paras 143]Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposed because the provision was not in force during the period of the contravention.Constitution of National Anti-Profiteering Authority and requirement of judicial member - Excessive delegation - Validity of the Authority's constitution (absence of a judicial member) and challenge of excessive delegation/vires of Rule 122/Rule 126. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that it was constituted under Section 171(2) read with Rule 122 and other Rules framed under Section 164 on the recommendation of the GST Council and approved by the competent authorities. The Authority held that its duties are specialised/expert/quasi judicial (determining passage of tax/ITC benefits) and do not displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts; it therefore concluded that absence of a judicial member in the Authority did not render its constitution invalid. The Authority also recorded that it has notified Methodology & Procedure under Rule 126 (Notification dated 28.03.2018) and that the substantive requirement to pass on tax/ITC benefit is set out in Section 171(1); facts vary case to case and no single mathematical formula can be universally prescribed. Challenges alleging excessive delegation or the need for a prescribed, uniform computation methodology were rejected. [Paras 40, 76, 84]Challenges to the constitution and to absence of a prescribed uniform methodology dismissed; Authority's constitution and exercise of powers upheld and its Methodology & Procedure (and Section 171) treated as the operative framework.Scope of investigation - product-level versus complainant/product-limited investigation - Anti-profiteering - Whether DGAP/Authority could investigate all products supplied by the respondent (restaurant services/SKUs) rather than restrict inquiry to the single product named in the complaint. - HELD THAT: - The Authority interpreted Section 171(1)-(2) to require passing on tax/ITC benefits on each supply to each recipient. Given that ITC accounting is maintained across supplies and the complaint alleged a pattern of menu/pricing conduct, the DGAP was entitled to investigate the restaurant service as a whole and the SKUs impacted by the tax change. Rule 133(5) clarifies expanded investigation power; the Authority held that DGAP's wider investigation into products where the rate changed was within mandate and justified by the complainants' allegations and the statutory scheme. [Paras 94, 96]DGAP was competent to investigate all impacted products under the restaurant service; investigation not confined to the single invoiced product in the complaint.Time limit for Authority's order - Directory versus mandatory procedural time limits - Whether the Authority's order (dated 16.11.2018) was time barred under Rule 133(1) and thus void. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the timeline of DGAP reports and replies and held that the operative date for computing the limitation ran from the last DGAP report/clarification (20.08.2018) and that the order passed on 16.11.2018 was within the three month period. In any event, the Authority accepted judicial authorities treating the Rule 133(1) time limit as directory rather than jurisdictional where no penal consequence is prescribed; therefore the proceedings were not abated for non observance of the three month timeline. [Paras 67, 70]Proceedings and order not vitiated by time limit objections; Rule 133(1) treated as directory.Final Conclusion: The Authority concluded that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction and denial of input tax credit to recipients for 15.11.2017-31.01.2018; the profiteered amount was quantified at Rs. 7,49,27,786, for which the respondent must effect commensurate price reduction and deposit the amount (with 18% interest) into the central/state Consumer Welfare Funds as directed. Challenges to the Authority's constitution, methodology, scope of investigation and limitation were rejected; penalty under Section 171(3A) was not imposed because that provision was not in force during the period of contravention.

Anti-profiteering investigation - Further investigation on verification of post-GST bookings - Commensurate reduction in pricesFurther investigation - Post-GST bookings - Benefit of input tax credit - The DGAP report required reconsideration because the Respondent's claim that 70 flats were sold after introduction of GST, with prices allegedly negotiated after factoring input tax credit benefit, had not been examined in the investigation. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that the Respondent had specifically asserted that 70 flats were sold after 01.07.2017 and that the prices of those flats had been freshly negotiated after considering the input tax credit benefit. It also noted that, in his clarificatory report, the DGAP himself stated that this claim required further examination as it had been raised before the Authority and not investigated earlier. Since this aspect was material to determining whether the benefit of input tax credit had in fact been passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices, the report already submitted could not be acted upon as final and had to be revisited through further investigation. [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26]The matter was remitted for further investigation under the Rules to verify the claim regarding 70 post-GST flat sales, ascertain whether eligible buyers received the input tax credit benefit, and also examine compliance in any other projects of the Respondent.Final Conclusion: The Authority did not finally determine profiteering on merits. It directed further investigation, holding that the DGAP report had to be revisited to verify the Respondent's claim regarding 70 flats sold after GST and to examine whether the input tax credit benefit had been passed on to eligible buyers, including in the Respondent's other projects.

Profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - pass on benefit of reduction in GST rate - computation and quantification of profiteering - deposit into Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds where recipients are not identifiable - effect of interim order of the High Court on deposition and stay of interest and penalty - correction of clerical, arithmetical or factual mistake under the Authority's Procedure and Methodology (Para 30)Profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - pass on benefit of reduction in GST rate - computation and quantification of profiteering - Acceptability of the DGAP report and prior Authority determination that the Respondent had profiteered by failing to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found the DGAP's investigation and earlier Order No. 37/2020 based on the DGAP's report of 25.10.2019 to be acceptable. The earlier order had adjudicated that the Respondent realized an additional benefit (profiteering) in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period covered by the DGAP's investigation. The present report relates to the same subject-matter and period, and both the applicant and the respondent have either accepted the DGAP findings or not contested the factual conclusion that profiteering occurred. Consequently, the Authority treated the DGAP's computations as reliable for the purposes of this case and noted overlap with the earlier proceedings which had already determined the total profiteering amount against the Respondent. [Paras 1, 2, 5, 10]DGAP's report and the Authority's earlier determination confirming profiteering by the Respondent are accepted and treated as determinative for these proceedings.Computation and quantification of profiteering - deposit into Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds where recipients are not identifiable - Entitlement of Applicant No.1 to the quantified benefit and mechanism for its disbursement where the amount was already included in the earlier deposited profiteering sum. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP computed that Applicant No.1 was charged an excess of Rs. 11.73 (inclusive of GST) for a ticket dated 04.01.2019, a date within the period for which profiteering had been established against the Respondent. The Authority held that this amount was already included in the total profiteering amount determined earlier. Since recipients were not identifiable at the time of the earlier order and the amount had been directed to be deposited into the Central and Telangana State Consumer Welfare Funds, the Authority now recognises Applicant No.1's entitlement and directs disbursement from those funds. The Authority applied equal apportionment between the Central and State CWFs; the amount attributable from each Fund was halved and rounded to the nearest whole rupee for payment to the applicant. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 11, 12]Applicant No.1 is entitled to Rs.11.73 inclusive of GST with applicable interest, to be paid by transfer from the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Telangana State Consumer Welfare Fund (Rs.6 from each Fund after rounding).Effect of interim order of the High Court on deposition and stay of interest and penalty - deposit into Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds where recipients are not identifiable - Effect of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's interim order on the deposited amounts and on further proceedings in relation to interest and penalty. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's interim direction (in Writ Petition No. 7736/2020) that required the Respondent to deposit the principal profiteered amount subject to certain deductions in six instalments and stayed the payment of interest and penalty. The Authority recorded that the Respondent had complied by depositing amounts into the Central and State CWFs as per the High Court's order. The Authority accounted for this factual position in directing payment to Applicant No.1 from the CWFs, while noting the stay of interest and penalty as ordered by the High Court. [Paras 8, 9, 12]Authority acknowledges the High Court's interim order and the resultant deposits by the Respondent; disbursement to Applicant No.1 is ordered from the CWFs notwithstanding the High Court's stay on interest and penalty.Correction of clerical, arithmetical or factual mistake under the Authority's Procedure and Methodology (Para 30) - Permissibility of correcting the earlier Order No.37/2020 beyond the three-month window due to force majeure and subsequent Government notification. - HELD THAT: - Although Para 30 of the Authority's Procedure and Methodology ordinarily requires correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes within three months of the order, the Authority recognised that the three-month period lapsed. Taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic (force majeure) and Notification No.65/2020-Central Tax dated 01.09.2020 under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, the Authority treated the present order as a permissible correction to address an apparent factual/arithmetic overlap and to effectuate payment to an identified recipient. [Paras 13]Correction/order is made notwithstanding the three-month lapse on account of force majeure and the cited Government notification, permitting this rectification and disbursement.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepts the DGAP report and its earlier order confirming profiteering by the Respondent for the period in question. Applicant No.1 is entitled to the excess charged of Rs.11.73 (inclusive of GST) together with applicable interest; payment will be made from the Central and Telangana State Consumer Welfare Funds (Rs.6 from each Fund after rounding). The Authority records the High Court's interim order and the Respondent's deposits and permits this correction despite the three-month window due to the COVID-19-related force majeure and applicable Government notification.

Passage of benefit of tax reduction by way of commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering investigation and DGAP fact-finding - average base price comparison method for computation of profiteering - authority to examine whether benefit of tax reduction has been passed on - scope of investigation into all products impacted by a rate reduction - exclusion of non-impacted goods from profiteering computation - reduction of profiteered amount for transactions reversed by credit note - penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable retrospectively for period prior to its commencement - deposit of profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare Funds with interestPassage of benefit of tax reduction by way of commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering investigation and DGAP fact-finding - Whether the Respondent was required to pass on, and in fact failed to pass on, the commensurate benefit of the GST rate reduction to its customers. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined DGAP's investigation and the Respondent's submissions and found that Notification No. 24/2018 reduced GST on certain goods from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and that the Respondent was therefore obliged under Section 171(1) to pass on the benefit by commensurate reduction in cum-tax prices. Comparison of average pre-rate-reduction base prices (01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018) with actual invoice-wise base prices during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 showed that the Respondent increased base prices post rate-reduction so that consumers did not receive a commensurate reduction in final price despite lower tax rate. The Authority found this conduct to be contrary to Section 171(1) and concluded that profiteering occurred. [Paras 22, 23, 25, 26]Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of tax reduction and has engaged in profiteering.Average base price comparison method for computation of profiteering - authority to examine whether benefit of tax reduction has been passed on - Whether the DGAP's methodology of computing profiteering by comparing average pre-rate-reduction base prices with actual post-rate-reduction invoice-wise base prices was lawful and appropriate. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that the DGAP's method-using average base prices for the pre-reduction period (primarily December 2018) and comparing them with actual invoice-wise post-reduction base prices-was reasonable, dependable and consistent with Section 171(1). The Authority rejected the Respondent's contentions that retail price volatility, MRPs, discounts, customer bargaining, or e-commerce competition rendered the average method arbitrary. The Authority explained that average-to-invoice comparison ensures each purchaser is entitled to the benefit on each supply and that comparing average-to-average or using maximum prices would defeat that statutory obligation. [Paras 24, 26, 27, 36, 37]DGAP's average base price comparison methodology is valid and may be relied upon for computing profiteering.Scope of investigation into all products impacted by a rate reduction - anti-profiteering investigation and DGAP fact-finding - Whether the DGAP was entitled to investigate all products impacted by the rate reduction rather than only the product named in the complaint. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that the DGAP is mandated by Section 171 and Rule 129 to investigate whether benefits of tax rate reductions have been passed on for products impacted by a notified rate change. There is no provision restricting investigation only to the specific product mentioned in the complaint; Rule 133(5) is a clarification and does not bar DGAP from investigating all impacted products when notice so indicates. The Notice of Initiation of Investigation clearly required the Respondent to furnish details for all goods impacted by the rate reduction, so the DGAP's broader enquiry was lawful. [Paras 29, 30, 31, 32, 33]DGAP was entitled to investigate all products affected by the GST rate reduction; the expansion of scope was lawful.Exclusion of non-impacted goods from profiteering computation - Whether certain products (Power Banks with Lithium Polymer batteries) were correctly excluded from the profiteered amount. - HELD THAT: - The Respondent produced evidence that several power banks sold were of the Lithium Polymer type which were not within the scope of Notification No. 24/2018 that reduced rate for Lithium Ion power banks. DGAP accepted that these items were not impacted by the rate change and recommended reduction of the profiteered amount accordingly. The Authority examined the material and allowed reduction of the profiteered amount by the sum attributable to such non-impacted power banks. [Paras 42, 43]Profiteered amount reduced to exclude supplies of non-impacted (Lithium Polymer) power banks.Reduction of profiteered amount for transactions reversed by credit note - Whether an erroneously included transaction reversed by credit note should be excluded from profiteering computation. - HELD THAT: - The Respondent identified a transaction on 30.06.2019 which had been reversed by a credit note on 01.07.2019. DGAP acknowledged that profiteering on that cancelled invoice had been inadvertently included and recommended its removal from computations. The Authority accepted that correction and directed the profiteered amount to be reduced accordingly. [Paras 40, 41]Profiteering computed on the cancelled transaction is to be excluded from total profiteered amount.Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable retrospectively for period prior to its commencement - Whether penalty prescribed by Section 171(3A) could be imposed for profiteering that occurred during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A), providing for penalty equal to 10% of the amount profiteered, was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and therefore was not in force during the period when the Respondent committed the violation (01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019). The Authority held that the penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively and accordingly did not issue notice for penalty. [Paras 46]No penalty under Section 171(3A) is leviable for the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 as the provision was not in force then.Deposit of profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare Funds with interest - monitoring of compliance by CGST/SGST Commissioners under DGAP supervision - Relief and directions to be issued consequent to the finding of profiteering, including computation, deposit and monitoring. - HELD THAT: - Having determined the net profiteered amount after adjustments, the Authority fixed the profiteered sum at the revised total (as computed in Annexure-20 and DGAP's clarifications) and directed the Respondent to reduce prices commensurately. As recipients were not identifiable, the Authority ordered the Respondent to deposit the total profiteered amount in two equal parts into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the State Consumer Welfare Fund(s) of the concerned States, along with interest at 18% from the dates the amounts were realised until deposit. The deposit is to be made within three months; failure will invite recovery under CGST/SGST Acts. The Authority also directed monitoring of compliance by concerned Commissioners under DGAP supervision and submission of a compliance report within four months. [Paras 43, 44, 45]Respondent directed to deposit the revised profiteered amount with 18% interest into designated Consumer Welfare Funds and to reduce prices; Commissioners to monitor compliance under DGAP supervision.Final Conclusion: The Authority found that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% on impacted goods during 01.01.2019-30.06.2019, determined net profiteering of Rs. 34,34,008/- after adjustments, declined to impose penalty under Section 171(3A) as not then in force, and directed commensurate price reduction and deposit of the profiteered amount with 18% interest into the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds, with compliance to be monitored by the CGST/SGST Commissioners under DGAP supervision.

Interpretation of commensurate reduction in prices under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - profiteering computed at SKU-level - average pre-rate period versus actual post-rate period comparison for determination of profiteering - no netting off / "zeroing" of excess benefit across different SKUs - treatment of DGAP reports under further-investigation (Rule 133(4)) as fresh reports for the purpose of Rule 133(1) time-limit - deposit of determined profiteered amount into Consumer Welfare Fund - affixation of revised MRP stickers and Legal Metrology compliance - penalty under Section 171(3A) and retrospective applicationInterpretation of commensurate reduction in prices under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - profiteering computed at SKU-level - Whether the Respondents failed to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction and thereby contravened Section 171(1), and the quantum/place-wise allocation of profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that GST on the relevant goods was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and that the Respondents increased base prices w.e.f. that date rather than effecting a commensurate reduction in cum-tax prices. The Authority held that Section 171(1) requires the benefit of a tax-rate reduction to be passed to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices on each supply; consequently profiteering must be determined at the SKU/individual supply level. On the facts, comparison of channel-wise average base prices for 01.11.2017-14.11.2017 with invoice-wise actual base prices for 15.11.2017-30.09.2018 showed higher realisations; the DGAP's annexed computations were adopted. The Authority concluded that the Respondents had contravened Section 171(1) during 15.11.2017-30.09.2018 and fixed the consolidated profiteered amount and its breakup among the three companies and across States/UTs as per the DGAP's recomputation. [Paras 21, 22, 100]Respondents found to have violated Section 171(1); total profiteering fixed at Rs. 2,41,51,14,485/-, allocated as Rs. 181,51,46,262 to PGHP, Rs. 2,00,30,807 to PGHH, and Rs. 57,99,37,416 to GIL, with State/UT-wise breakup as in Annexure-6.Average pre-rate period versus actual post-rate period comparison for determination of profiteering - no netting off / "zeroing" of excess benefit across different SKUs - Validity of the DGAP's methodology of computing profiteering by comparing pre-rate-reduction average base prices (01.11.2017-14.11.2017) with invoice-wise actual post-rate base prices (15.11.2017-30.09.2018) and refusal to net off excess benefits on some SKUs against shortfall on others. - HELD THAT: - After considering submissions, the Authority upheld the DGAP's approach. It accepted that because prices varied across customers and many recipients may not have bought the same SKU in the pre-rate period, averaging the short pre-rate window and comparing that average to actual post-rate invoice prices is a practicable method to ensure each transaction is covered and each buyer entitled to the benefit. The Authority rejected the Respondents' contention that benefits passed on for some SKUs could be netted off against shortfalls on others (the 'zeroing' objection), holding that Section 171(1)'s wording and purpose require passing benefit on each supply and to each recipient, so netting off across different supplies is not permissible. [Paras 22, 38, 41]DGAP's average-pre vs. actual-post methodology upheld and netting-off across SKUs disallowed; methodology deemed appropriate to implement Section 171(1).Deposit of determined profiteered amount into Consumer Welfare Fund - Mode of disposal of the determined profiteered amount where individual recipients are not identifiable. - HELD THAT: - The Authority directed that, because the ultimate consumer recipients are numerous and not identifiable, 50% of the determined profiteered amount be deposited in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and 50% be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the concerned States/UTs, along with interest at 18% from the dates the amounts were realised until deposit. The respondents were given a three-month period to deposit the sums; non-compliance was directed to be pursued by state/central tax commissioners under applicable law. [Paras 102, 106]Direct the Respondents to deposit 50% of the profiteered amount into the Central CWF and 50% into the relevant State/UT CWFs, with 18% interest, within three months; compliance to be monitored by Commissioners CGST/SGST.Treatment of DGAP reports under further-investigation (Rule 133(4)) as fresh reports for the purpose of Rule 133(1) time-limit - Whether further investigation ordered under Rule 133(4) could be treated as producing a fresh report for the purpose of the time-limit to pass orders under Rule 133(1), and related consequences on maintainability/time-bar. - HELD THAT: - The Authority explained that Rule 133(1) permits it to pass an order on the report received from the DGAP; where this Authority directs further investigation under Rule 133(4), the DGAP's subsequent report under Rule 129(6) is to be treated as a fresh report for the purposes of Rule 133(1) (as clarified in the Authority's Guidelines). The Authority held that the DGAP's reports (initial and after further investigation) were maintainable; statutory timelines are directory and in the circumstances (including further investigation and later COVID-19 impact) the proceedings were not time barred. [Paras 25, 28, 31]Further-investigation report treated as fresh report for Rule 133(1); DGAP reports maintained; time-limits considered directory and proceedings held maintainable.Further investigation and computation of profiteering on stock in distribution chain - Whether any aspect required remand for fresh investigation/verification. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that reasonable grounds existed to investigate beyond the fixed period: (a) to compute profiteering until the date the benefit is actually passed on, and (b) to compute profiteering in respect of stock lying with the Respondents and in the distribution chain/retailers as on 15.11.2017. The DGAP was directed to carry out these further investigations and furnish a report in accordance with Rule 129(6). This remit is a remand for fresh consideration and computation rather than final adjudication on those items. [Paras 103, 104, 105]Remand - DGAP directed to (i) investigate and compute profiteering up to the date benefit is passed on, and (ii) compute profiteering on stock in the Respondents' and distribution channels' possession as on 15.11.2017, and furnish a fresh report under Rule 129(6).Penalty under Section 171(3A) not retrospective - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for contraventions occurring during the investigation period (15.11.2017-30.09.2018). - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A) (penalty provision) was inserted into the CGST Act by the Finance Act, 2019 with effect from 01.01.2020. The Authority held that penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively for profiteering that occurred in 2017-2018. On that basis, no penalty proceedings were initiated at this stage. [Paras 107]Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposed retrospectively for the period 15.11.2017-30.09.2018; no penalty notice issued.Affixation of revised MRP stickers and Legal Metrology compliance - Whether Legal Metrology non-compliance (failure to affix revised MRP stickers) required action and what agency should be informed. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that the Respondents had not affixed revised MRP stickers on stock as contemplated by the Ministry's communication; though the Authority cannot itself enforce the Legal Metrology Act, it directed the DGAP to supply a copy of this order to the appropriate Legal Metrology authorities for them to take action under their statutory mandate and to report back. [Paras 105]DGAP directed to forward a copy of this order to the competent Legal Metrology authorities for appropriate action concerning MRP re stickering/non-compliance.Final Conclusion: The Authority holds that the three P&G companies contravened Section 171(1) by not passing on the GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017; total profiteering is fixed at Rs. 2,41,51,14,485/- (allocated among the three companies and States/UTs as per Annexure-6). The Respondents are directed to (a) reduce prices forthwith for the affected SKUs; (b) deposit 50% of the profiteered amount into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and 50% into the States'/UTs' Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest within three months; (c) comply with further directions - DGAP to investigate profiteering up to the date benefit is passed and in respect of stock in the distribution chain and to report back; DGAP to supply this order to Legal Metrology authorities; and no penalty under Section 171(3A) is imposed retrospectively for the period under investigation.

Violation of Section 171(1) CGST Act - failure to pass on benefit of rate reduction - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) CGST Act for issuance of incorrect or false invoices - Non-retrospectivity of penal provisions - Insertion of penal provision Section 171(3A) by Finance Act, 2019Violation of Section 171(1) CGST Act - failure to pass on benefit of rate reduction - Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of rate reduction to customers for the period 01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 and thereby violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP report and after consideration recorded that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of the rate reduction to his customers in the period from 01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018. The finding of violation under Section 171(1) is reiterated by the Authority on the basis of the investigation and earlier order determining the profiteered amount for that period. [Paras 6]Violation of Section 171(1) for the period 01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 is affirmed.Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) CGST Act for issuance of incorrect or false invoices - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act cannot be imposed for failure to pass on benefit under Section 171(1). - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the scope of Section 122(1)(i) which penalises issuance of incorrect or false invoices and found that the omission to pass on the benefit of a rate reduction under Section 171(1) is not covered by that provision. Consequently, the show cause notice seeking imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) for the anti profiteering contravention was held to be not sustainable. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) cannot be invoked for the violation of Section 171(1).Insertion of penal provision Section 171(3A) by Finance Act, 2019 - Non-retrospectivity of penal provisions - The specific penal provision for breach of Section 171(1) introduced by Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A)) which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 cannot be applied retrospectively to the period 01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018; accordingly penalty proceedings are withdrawn. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that Section 171(3A) prescribing a specific penalty for violation of Section 171(1) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 and became effective from 01.01.2020. As no penal provision existed at the time of the contravention (01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018), the newly inserted provision cannot be applied retrospectively. In view of this non retrospectivity, the notice dated 08.05.2019 for imposition of penalty was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 8, 9]Penalty under newly inserted Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively for contraventions occurring between 01.11.2017 and 31.08.2018; penalty proceedings withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The Authority affirmed that the respondent violated Section 171(1) for the period 01.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 but held that neither Section 122(1)(i) nor the Section 171(3A) penal provision (inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020) can be applied to impose penalty for that period; accordingly the penalty proceedings are withdrawn and dropped.

Violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act (anti profiteering) - Determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act for issuing incorrect or false invoices - Non retrospective operation of Section 171(3A) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2019Violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act (anti profiteering) - Determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules - Respondent had violated the anti profiteering provisions by not passing on the benefit of rate reduction for the specified period and profiteered amount was determined. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted the DGAP's investigation and its earlier Order No. 28/2019 which had determined the profiteered amount for the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018. Upon consideration of the materials and the respondent's submissions, the Authority reaffirmed that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of rate reduction to the complainant and other customers during the said period and thereby violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act. The determination of the profiteered amount was made under the mechanism contemplated by Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules and is reflected in the Authority's earlier order accepted in the proceedings. [Paras 1, 2, 6]Violation of Section 171(1) established and profiteered amount determined for 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018.Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act for issuing incorrect or false invoices - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) could not be imposed for the failure to pass on benefit under Section 171(1) because that provision does not cover such violation. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined whether the respondent could be proceeded against under Section 122(1)(i) for having allegedly issued incorrect or false invoices in charging excess consideration. On scrutiny, it was held that the mischief addressed by Section 122(1)(i) does not encompass the specific omission of passing on rate reduction benefits under Section 171(1); no penalty for failing to pass on benefit is provided by Section 122(1)(i). Consequently, the show cause notice issued under Section 122(1)(i) could not validly be sustained for the anti profiteering contravention. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is not attracted by the violation of Section 171(1) and therefore cannot be imposed on that basis.Non retrospective operation of Section 171(3A) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 - The specific penalty provision for breach of Section 171(1) inserted as Section 171(3A) with effect from 01.01.2020 cannot be applied retrospectively to conduct occurring between 15.11.2017 and 31.10.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that Section 171(3A) - brought into the statute by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 - prescribes a specific penalty for contraventions of Section 171(1) but came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020. Since the respondent's failure to pass on the benefit occurred during 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018, there were no specific penalty provisions in force at that time for that violation. The Authority therefore held that the later enacted penalty provision could not be applied retrospectively to attract punishment for past conduct and accordingly withdrew the notice seeking penalty under the earlier invoked provision. [Paras 8, 9]Section 171(3A) is not retrospectively applicable; penalty proceedings for the period 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018 are dropped and the notice under Section 122(1)(i) is withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The Authority reaffirmed that the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of rate reduction for 15.11.2017 to 31.10.2018 and had profiteered (as previously determined), but held that no penalty could be imposed under Section 122(1)(i) for that contravention and that the specific penalty provision subsequently inserted as Section 171(3A) (effective 01.01.2020) cannot be applied retrospectively; accordingly the penalty proceedings are withdrawn and dropped.

Anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act - passing on benefit of reduction in rate of tax by way of commensurate reduction in prices - commensurate reduction in prices as the legally prescribed mechanism for passing on tax-rate benefits - determination and computation of profiteered amount - deposit of profiteered amount in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds - interest on profiteered amountReduction in GST rate - Rate of GST on admission to exhibition of cinematograph films for specified ticket-price slabs was reduced w.e.f. 01.01.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found as a matter of fact, unchallenged by the respondent, that the Central and State Governments reduced GST rates on admission to cinematograph films: for tickets priced Rs.100 or less the rate was reduced from 18% to 12% and for tickets above Rs.100 the rate was reduced from 28% to 18% with effect from 01.01.2019. This factual and legal conclusion formed the predicate for the application of Section 171's anti-profiteering obligations in the present case. [Paras 9, 21]GST rate reduction w.e.f. 01.01.2019 is accepted as established.Passing on benefit of reduction in rate of tax by way of commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act - Whether the respondent passed on the benefit of the GST rate reduction to recipients for the ticket categories complained of. - HELD THAT: - Applying Section 171(1), the Authority held that a supplier must pass on a tax-rate benefit by a commensurate monetary reduction in the final price payable by the consumer. Examination of invoice-level sales data showed three ticket categories pre- and post-rate reduction. For Upper and Lower Balcony tickets the cum-tax price fell from Rs.118 to Rs.112 and base price remained unchanged. For First Class and Second Class tickets the respondent increased base prices after the rate change such that the cum-tax selling prices remained at pre-reduction levels (Rs.80 and Rs.50 respectively), instead of being reduced to the commensurate cum-tax levels. Contentions about licensing regime, procurement costs, dynamic pricing, payments to producers/distributors or absence of ITC benefit were either unsupported by documentary evidence or irrelevant to the statutory requirement to pass on the tax-rate reduction. The Authority also noted that temporary reductions effected for a limited period (11.03.2019 to 08.05.2019) were considered in computation, but overall non-compliance continued through 30.06.2019. [Paras 14, 15, 29]Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction in respect of First Class and Second Class tickets for the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019.Determination and computation of profiteered amount - deposit of profiteered amount in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds - interest on profiteered amount - Quantification of profiteering and remedial directions where recipients are not identifiable. - HELD THAT: - Using the respondent's outward-supply data for the investigation period, the Authority computed the excess base price per ticket and the corresponding profiteered amount (including GST on the profiteered portion) for First Class and Second Class tickets for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. The total profiteered amount was determined to be Rs.2,23,850 for the period under investigation. As recipients were not identifiable from the records, the Authority ordered deposit of half the profiteered amount into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and half into the Telangana State Consumer Welfare Fund. The respondent was directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest at 18% from the date of collection until deposit, to reduce ticket prices in accordance with the tax-rate reduction, and compliance monitoring was entrusted to the State Commissioners under DGAP supervision. [Paras 15, 29, 30, 31]Profiteering quantified at Rs.2,23,850 for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019; respondent directed to deposit Rs.1,11,925 in the Central CWF and Rs.1,11,925 in the Telangana State CWF with 18% interest, reduce prices, and comply with monitoring directions.Final Conclusion: The Authority held that GST rates on cinema admission were reduced w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and that the respondent did not pass the benefit of the reduction to cine goers for two ticket categories during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019; profiteering was quantified at Rs.2,23,850, and the respondent was directed to reduce prices, deposit the apportioned amount into the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest, and comply with supervisory monitoring.

Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - profiteering under Section 171 - passing on benefit by way of credit notes - reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) - interest on profiteered amount - time of supply (advances received)Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - profiteering under Section 171 - passing on benefit by way of credit notes - interest on profiteered amount - Whether the Respondent failed to pass on the additional benefit of input tax credit to homebuyers and thereby profiteered; quantum of profiteering; verification of passing on and consequential directions. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP's computation, accepted by this Authority, showed that the ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover rose from 0.71% (pre-GST) to 0.85% (post-GST), yielding an additional benefit of 0.14% of turnover which ought to have been passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price. The DGAP reconciled the home buyers' demands with statutory returns (including advances and other components relevant to time of supply) and computed the excess collection (profiteering) for the period under investigation. The Respondent accepted the DGAP's calculation and produced ledgers and credit notes evidencing passing on of the benefit to 355 homebuyers; the DGAP's supplementary verification found those records in order. This Authority, however, noted that the Applicants had not furnished acknowledgements of receipt and therefore directed the jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure payment to the Applicants. The Authority observed that it is confined to ensuring passing on of tax rate reductions and ITC benefits and not to adjudicate other tax issues (such as alleged wrongful charging of GST). The Respondent was also directed to pay interest at the prescribed rate on the profiteered amount for the period it was retained, and the DGAP was directed to verify payment of interest and report. (Findings and computations appear in the DGAP report and are accepted by the Authority.) [Paras 29, 31, 32, 33, 34]Respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing the additional ITC benefit; profiteered amount determined as Rs. 13,32,278/- (inclusive of GST) for the period, including Rs. 3,880/- and Rs. 3,929/- in respect of Applicants No. 1 and 2 respectively; DGAP verification of passing on to 355 buyers accepted; Respondent to ensure reduction of prices/issue credit notes and pay interest; jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure payment to Applicants.Reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) - benefit of input tax credit - comprehensive investigation at occupancy certificate - Whether further investigation is required in respect of the remaining towers/units of the project and whether future additional ITC accruals should be examined later. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP's initial report recorded that completion certificates had been issued only for 10 towers while seven towers (927 units) remained under construction. Given that additional ITC may accrue as construction progresses and the exact quantum of ITC available at project completion could not be determined at the time of the present investigation, the Authority found it necessary to direct further inquiry. Consequently, the Authority ordered reassessment/investigation of the remaining seven towers and directed the DGAP to carry out a comprehensive investigation at the time of issue of the occupancy certificate to determine and ensure passing on of any further ITC benefit. [Paras 35, 37]DGAP directed to investigate the remaining seven towers and to undertake a comprehensive investigation at the time of issuance of occupancy certificate and submit a report under Section 171(2).Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's revised investigation and computation, held that the Respondent failed to pass on additional ITC thereby profiteering to the extent of Rs. 13,32,278/- for the period under review, directed reduction of prices/issue of credit notes and payment of interest to eligible buyers, and ordered further investigation of the remaining towers with a mandate for comprehensive review at occupancy certificate stage.

Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology for computing profiteering by comparing pre GST CENVAT/VAT ratio with post GST ITC ratio - verification of passing on of ITC under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - interest on profiteered amount - penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - supervision and recovery by Commissioners CGST/SGSTProfiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - benefit of input tax credit - Whether the Respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing on the benefit of additional ITC to his buyers and the aggregate amount of profiteering during the investigation period - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's computation comparing the ratio of CENVAT/VAT to turnover in the pre GST period with the ratio of ITC to turnover in the post GST period and held that the Respondent derived an additional ITC benefit of 2.67% of turnover after 01.07.2017. Applying this methodology to the recorded turnovers and ITC data for the project, the Authority found that the Respondent did not pass on the additional ITC benefit to buyers and thereby contravened Section 171. The DGAP's computation of the aggregate profiteered amount for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 was accepted as being based on the Respondent's statutory returns and ITC registers and therefore reliable. [Paras 15, 29, 30, 44, 47]The Respondent contravened Section 171 and the aggregate profiteered amount for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 is determined as Rs. 1,95,86,429/- (inclusive of applicable GST).Verification of passing on of ITC under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - matching of ledgers and credit notes - Whether the Respondent had actually passed on ITC benefit to buyers as claimed and the balance amounts, if any, to be refunded - HELD THAT: - On remand under Rule 133(4) the DGAP verified the Respondent's ledger entries, credit notes and supporting documents. The DGAP confirmed that the Respondent had passed on ITC benefit amounting to Rs. 2,06,88,394/- to eligible buyers (categories and unit counts as examined) but shortfall remained for specified subsets of buyers. The DGAP furnished annexures identifying buyers who received excess, who received correct amounts and who were yet to receive the balance, and the Authority accepted the DGAP's verified reconciliation. [Paras 32, 33, 35, 43, 45]Verified ITC passed on totals Rs. 2,06,88,394/-. The Respondent must pass on the balance aggregate amount of Rs. 25,08,041/- to the identified 157 buyers as per Annexure 3 and Annexure 5 within three months.Interest on profiteered amount - use of amount in business and liability to pay interest - Whether the Respondent is liable to pay interest on the profiteered amounts passed on belatedly and the rate applicable - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that the Respondent utilised amounts received from buyers (being the additional consideration) in his business and therefore directed payment of interest under the statutory scheme. The DGAP is directed to ensure interest is disbursed to eligible buyers and to report compliance; non payment to be recovered by the concerned Commissioner. [Paras 49]Interest at 18% per annum to be paid to eligible buyers from the dates when the additional amounts were collected until payment of ITC benefit; DGAP to ensure payment and report compliance; recovery if not paid.Commensurate reduction in prices - future ITC accruals to be passed on - Whether the Respondent must reduce prices commensurate with ITC benefit and pass on any ITC benefits accruing after the investigation period - HELD THAT: - The Authority ordered that the Respondent shall reduce prices to be realised from buyers commensurate with the ITC benefit already determined. It further clarified that the investigation covered up to 31.12.2018 and any ITC benefit accruing subsequently must also be passed on to buyers when ascertained. [Paras 50]Respondent directed to effect commensurate reduction in prices and pass on any subsequent ITC benefits accruing after 31.12.2018 to buyers.Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - show cause for imposition of penalty - Whether proceedings for penalty for contravention should be initiated against the Respondent - HELD THAT: - Having found contravention of Section 171(1), the Authority held that the Respondent committed an offence under Section 171(3A) and directed issuance of a show cause notice asking why penalty under the provision read with Rule 133(3)(d) should not be imposed. [Paras 51]A show cause notice shall be issued to the Respondent to explain why penalty under Section 171(3A) read with Rule 133(3)(d) should not be imposed.Supervision and recovery by Commissioners CGST/SGST - monitoring of compliance - Mechanism for monitoring compliance with the Authority's directions and recovery if the Respondent fails to refund amounts - HELD THAT: - The Authority directed the Commissioners of CGST/SGST, Haryana to monitor implementation under DGAP's supervision, ensure the profiteered amount and interest are paid to eligible buyers, and to recover amounts if the Respondent fails to comply. A compliance report is ordered within four months. [Paras 48, 52]Commissioners CGST/SGST Haryana to monitor and, if necessary, recover amounts; a compliance report to be submitted to the Authority through DGAP within four months.Final Conclusion: The Authority found that the Respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing on the additional ITC benefit (2.67% of turnover) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and fixed the aggregate profiteered amount at Rs. 1,95,86,429/-. The DGAP's verification that Rs. 2,06,88,394/- had been passed on was accepted and the Respondent is directed to pay the remaining Rs. 25,08,041/- to identified buyers within three months with interest at 18% per annum from the dates of collection; a show cause notice for penalty under Section 171(3A) is to be issued and Commissioners CGST/SGST Haryana shall supervise compliance and recovery where necessary.

Failure to pass on benefit of additional Input Tax Credit - Violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) - Alleged offence under Section 122(1)(i) for incorrect or false invoice - Non-applicability of existing penal provision to omission to pass on tax benefit - Insertion of penalty provision via Section 171(3A) by Finance Act, 2019 - Non-retrospectivity of newly enacted penal provisionFailure to pass on benefit of additional Input Tax Credit - Violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) - Respondent did not pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to buyers for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and therefore violated Section 171(1). - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's investigation and report dated 28.11.2018 and, after hearing the parties, accepted the DGAP's determination. By Order No. 21/2019 the Authority quantified the profiteered amount and found that the respondent failed to pass on additional ITC to the complainant and other home buyers for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018, thereby contravening the statutory obligation in Section 171(1). The factual finding of omission to pass on benefit and the consequent determination of profiteering were affirmed on the basis of the investigation and submissions before the Authority. [Paras 2, 6]Findings that the respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on additional ITC for 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and that a profiteered amount was determined were confirmed.Alleged offence under Section 122(1)(i) for incorrect or false invoice - Non-applicability of existing penal provision to omission to pass on tax benefit - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) could not be imposed for the respondent's failure to pass on the benefit of tax reduction/ITC. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the statutory text of Section 122(1)(i) and concluded that it does not cover the failure to pass on benefits of tax reduction or ITC under Section 171(1). Although a show-cause notice was issued invoking Section 122(1)(i) on the premise that incorrect or false invoicing accompanied charging of excess consideration, the legal scope of Section 122(1)(i) does not extend to the specific omission constituting a breach of Section 171(1). Consequently, the penalty provision invoked in the notice could not validly be applied to the anti-profiteering violation. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is not attracted by the respondent's omission to pass on ITC benefits and therefore cannot be imposed for that violation.Insertion of penalty provision via Section 171(3A) by Finance Act, 2019 - Non-retrospectivity of newly enacted penal provision - The penalty introduced by insertion of Section 171(3A) with effect from 01.01.2020 cannot be imposed retrospectively for violations committed during 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that specific penal consequences for contravention of Section 171(1) were legislated only by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019, which inserted Section 171(3A) effective from 01.01.2020. As there were no corresponding penalty provisions in force at the time the respondent's violation occurred (01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018), applying the newly enacted penalty retrospectively would be impermissible. On that basis, the notice dated 01.04.2019 invoking penalty proceedings was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 8, 9]Penalty under Section 171(3A) (inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020) cannot be applied retrospectively to the respondent's conduct during 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018; penalty proceedings withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The Authority confirmed that the respondent failed to pass on additional ITC to buyers for 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and that profiteering was determined, but concluded that no penalty under Section 122(1)(i) was tenable for that omission and that the penalty newly provided by Section 171(3A) (effective 01.01.2020) could not be imposed retrospectively; accordingly the penalty proceedings were withdrawn.

Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - passing on benefit of tax rate reduction by commensurate reduction in prices - Methodology for computation of profiteering - comparison of pre rate average base price with post rate invoice wise base price per SKU - Inclusion of excess GST charged on increased base price within the profiteered amount - Authority empowered to determine procedure and methodology under Rule 126 - Deposit of profiteered amount in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds where recipients are not identifiable - Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable retrospectivelySection 171(1) of the CGST Act - passing on benefit of tax rate reduction by commensurate reduction in prices - Whether the Respondent denied and was required to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction on Digital Cameras and Power Banks during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that the GST rate on the specified products was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and that Section 171(1) mandated passing the benefit to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Comparison of average pre rate reduction base prices (Dec 2018 and Sept-Nov 2018 where applicable) with invoice wise post rate base prices showed that the Respondent increased base prices w.e.f. 01.01.2019 such that the cum tax selling price did not fall commensurately. The Authority concluded that the Respondent thus denied the benefit to customers and contravened Section 171(1). [Paras 10, 16, 23, 24]Respondent failed to pass on the commensurate benefit of the GST rate reduction and thereby contravened Section 171(1) for the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019.Methodology for computation of profiteering - comparison of pre rate average base price with post rate invoice wise base price per SKU - Authority empowered to determine procedure and methodology under Rule 126 - Whether the DGAP's methodology for quantifying profiteering was correct and acceptable. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined DGAP's approach of computing average base prices for the pre rate period (Dec 2018 and Sept-Nov 2018 where needed) for each SKU, deriving the commensurate post rate base price, and comparing that with each invoice wise actual post rate base price to compute excess realization. The Authority held that individual SKU wise, invoice wise comparison is required to ensure each purchaser receives the due benefit; average to average comparison would defeat Section 171 and Article 14. The methodology was held to be reasonable, justifiable and consistent with Rule 126 and prior practice of the Authority, and the Respondent conceded the pre rate averages. Accordingly the DGAP's computation was accepted. [Paras 25, 26]DGAP's methodology for computation of profiteering was correct and the computation as per Annexure 21 is accepted.Inclusion of excess GST charged on increased base price within the profiteered amount - Whether the excess GST collected from customers on account of increased base prices must be included in the profiteered amount. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that by not reducing base prices commensurately, the Respondent not only collected excess base price but also compelled customers to pay additional GST on that excess, which customers were not liable to pay. The excess tax collected is therefore part of the amount denied to recipients and must be refunded or deposited in Consumer Welfare Funds. The Respondent's payment of the excess tax to Government and inability to issue credit notes within limitation did not absolve him of liability under Section 171; returning excess tax by credit notes and adjustment under Section 34 was available but not availed timely. Hence the excess GST was properly included in the profiteered amount. [Paras 14, 34]Excess GST charged on the increased base prices is part of the profiteered amount and is includible in the quantum determined.Claims of sales returns, discounts, and below cost sales as offsets to profiteering - Whether the Respondent's contentions that sales returns, discount/festive pricing, and sales below cost reduce the profiteered amount were sustainable. - HELD THAT: - The Authority reviewed the Respondent's claims (credit notes/sale returns, festival discounts, and sales below cost) and DGAP's replies. DGAP represented that sale returns were considered and excluded where applicable in the profiteering sheet; the Authority's scrutiny of the record showed the Respondent failed to substantiate asserted higher costs or discount evidence and admitted many sales as 'normal'. The Authority rejected the contention that December prices were anomalously low due to festive discounts without supporting evidence, and rejected claimed cost figures and SAP screenshots as unreliable. Consequently the suggested reductions (aggregate claims) were not accepted. [Paras 33, 35, 36, 37]Claims for reduction of profiteered amount on account of sale returns, discounted/festive pricing or alleged below cost sales are not accepted and no adjustments are allowed on these grounds.Deposit of profiteered amount in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds where recipients are not identifiable - Remedial directions for recovery/deposit of the quantified profiteered amount. - HELD THAT: - Having determined the profiteered amount, the Authority directed the Respondent to reduce prices commensurately and to deposit the total profiteered amount determined in Annexure 21 in equal halves into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Consumer Welfare Funds of the States/UTs as enumerated, together with 18% interest from the dates amounts were realized until deposit, within three months. The Authority directed supervision by Commissioners CGST/SGST and reporting under Rule 136. [Paras 38, 39]Respondent directed to deposit Rs. 1,91,21,441/ (as determined) in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest within three months and to reduce prices commensurately; compliance to be monitored by CGST/SGST Commissioners.Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable retrospectively - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for profiteering committed during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A) prescribes penalty for profiteering but was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 by Finance Act, 2019. The Authority held that penalty under that provision could not be imposed retrospectively for misconduct occurring in the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 when the provision was not in force. Therefore no penalty notice under Section 171(3A) was issued. [Paras 40]Penalty under Section 171(3A) is not leviable for the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 and notice for penalty is not required to be issued.Final Conclusion: The Authority held that the Respondent denied the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction on Digital Cameras and Power Banks for the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, quantified the profiteering at Rs. 1,91,21,441 (including excess GST), rejected the Respondent's adjustment claims, directed deposit of the amount in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest and directed commensurate reduction of prices; imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) was not ordered as that provision was not in force for the period in question.

Non passing of benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - penalty under Section 171(3A) - prospective operation of penal provision - withdrawal of penalty proceedings for lack of retrospective applicationNon passing of benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - Respondent did not pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit and thereby violated the obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP's investigation report dated 24.04.2019, followed by this Authority's Order No. 75/2019 dated 18.12.2019, recorded that the respondent had failed to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to homebuyers in the project "Nirala Greenshire". After considering the report and the submissions, the Authority finds that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of ITC for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and therefore committed profiteering in breach of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act. The earlier determination of the profiteered amount was founded on that finding and remains the operative determination of profiteering for the stated period.Respondent held to have violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018; profiteering determination as recorded earlier stands.Penalty under Section 171(3A) - prospective operation of penal provision - withdrawal of penalty proceedings - Penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 because the provision came into force on 01.01.2020; consequent penalty proceedings are withdrawn. - HELD THAT: - Sub section 171(3A) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and its operation was notified to commence from 01.01.2020 by Notification No. 01/2020 Central Tax dated 01.01.2020. As no penalty provision existed at the time of the respondent's contravention (01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018), the penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively. In view of the prospective commencement of Section 171(3A), the notice dated 04.02.2020 seeking imposition of penalty is withdrawn and the penalty proceedings initiated under that provision are dropped.Notice for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) withdrawn and penalty proceedings dropped as the provision is prospective with effect from 01.01.2020.Final Conclusion: The Authority affirms that the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of additional ITC and committed profiteering for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 (as previously quantified), but declines to impose penalty under Section 171(3A) because that penal provision came into force only on 01.01.2020; accordingly the penalty proceedings are withdrawn.