Passing on the benefit of reduction in rate of tax and input tax credit - Commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Methodology for computation of profiteering - Investigation by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Channel-wise (Tier-1/Tier-2/Airport) computation of average base prices - Scope of DGAP investigation beyond the complained product - Deposit of profiteered amount with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds - Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable retrospectivelyPassing on the benefit of reduction in rate of tax and input tax credit - Commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Whether the Respondent contravened Section 171(1) by failing to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction (with denial of ITC) to recipients and whether profiteering is established - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined DGAP's reconciled product-wise sales registers, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns and applied the statutory requirement that any reduction in rate of tax or benefit of ITC must be passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices. After accepting DGAP's revised computation of the denial of ITC ratio at 11.79% and after channel-wise recalculation, the Authority found that the Respondent increased base prices post 15.11.2017 by more than the permissible impact of denial of ITC for a significant number of items and, therefore, did not effect a commensurate reduction in final prices payable by consumers. The DGAP's mathematical approach-comparison of pre-rate-reduction average base prices (channel-wise) with actual post-rate-reduction invoice-wise base prices, adjusting for the impact of denial of ITC-was held to be logical and appropriate for determining the amount not passed on. The Authority rejected the Respondent's contention that merely charging 5% GST sufficed to pass on the benefit, noting that the Respondent had raised base prices to neutralize the rate reduction and had also collected GST on the excess base price paid by consumers. On the above basis profiteering was held to be established. [Paras 31, 64, 65, 66, 93]Profiteering established; total profiteered amount determined as Rs. 1,04,70,664 for the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2018.Methodology for computation of profiteering - Channel-wise (Tier-1/Tier-2/Airport) computation of average base prices - Whether DGAP's mathematical methodology and the channel-wise recalculation directed by the Authority were appropriate for computing profiteering - HELD THAT: - The Authority reviewed the DGAP's methodology of reconciling product-wise sales with statutory returns and computing pre-rate-reduction average base prices (separately for city and airport channels), applying the computed ITC impact (11.79%) to arrive at commensurate post-rate prices and comparing these with actual invoice-wise post-rate prices. The Authority concluded that this methodology is a logical, reasonable and appropriate mathematical exercise in consonance with Section 171(1), and accepted the channel-wise recalculation ordered by the Authority's interim direction. The DGAP's revised computations and Annexure-4 were relied upon as the basis for the profiteering determination. [Paras 34, 65, 66]DGAP's methodology and the channel-wise recalculation are accepted as appropriate and are relied upon for quantification of profiteering.Methodology for computation of profiteering - Procedure and Methodology under Rule 126 - Whether the absence of a single prescribed universal formula or separate detailed regulations for computation of profiteering vitiates DGAP's exercise - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that Section 171(1) itself prescribes the essential procedure-pass on the benefit by way of commensurate reduction in prices-and that computation of profiteered amount is essentially a mathematical exercise which must be adapted to sector- and fact-specific circumstances. Rule 126 empowers the Authority to determine procedure and methodology, but no single fixed formula can suitably apply to all diverse sectors. The Authority observed that the DGAP's computations, tailored to the facts of this case and using reconciled statutory returns and product-wise data, satisfy the statutory requirement and do not become invalid merely because no universal formula exists. [Paras 87]Absence of a single prescribed universal computation formula does not invalidate DGAP's sector- and fact-specific mathematical methodology; the DGAP's approach is permissible.Price revision policy - Passing on the benefit of reduction in rate of tax and input tax credit - Whether the Respondent's asserted policy of increasing prices twice a year and the April 2018 price revision justify ignoring post-rate-reduction price increases in profiteering computation - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the Respondent's documentary material and DGAP's findings. It found the DGAP's summary assertion about periodic price increases to be unreasoned and without supporting evidence, and held the Respondent's own submissions and price lists to be incomplete, unsystematic and insufficient to establish a consistent twice-yearly pricing practice. The Authority further observed that the Respondent raised many base prices immediately on the intervening night of 14/15.11.2017-coincident with the rate reduction-and that such immediate increases could not be ascribed to contemporaneous cost shocks. Consequently, the Authority refused to ignore the price increase of April 2018 or other post-reduction price changes for the purpose of computing profiteering. [Paras 68, 69, 76, 77]Respondent's claim of a consistent twice-yearly pricing policy is rejected; post-rate-reduction price increases (including April 2018) are not to be ignored in computing profiteering.Scope of DGAP investigation beyond the complained product - Investigation by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether DGAP was empowered to investigate and quantify profiteering across products other than the one identified in the complaint - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that Section 171 and Rule 129 empower the DGAP and this Authority to investigate whether benefits of tax rate reduction or ITC have been passed on, and there is no statutory fetter limiting the DGAP to the exact product named in the complaint. The DGAP, as the investigating arm, must bring to the Authority's notice all instances of denial of benefit that come to light during investigation. The Office Memorandum delegating duties to the DGAP also casts a duty to investigate such cases broadly. Accordingly, the DGAP's investigation beyond the complained product was lawful and within scope. [Paras 82, 83, 84]DGAP lawfully investigated and quantified profiteering across products beyond the specific complaint; the expanded scope is within statutory mandate.Deposit of profiteered amount with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds - Interest on profiteered amount - What remedial directions should follow upon determination of profiteering - HELD THAT: - On finding profiteering, the Authority applied Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, directing the Respondent to reduce prices commensurately and to deposit the determined profiteered amount with interest calculated at 18% from the date of collection until deposit. Because recipients are not identifiable, the Authority ordered deposit of the amount with interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and concerned State Governments in a 50:50 ratio. Timelines for deposit and recovery in default were specified and supervisory and reporting responsibilities were assigned to the Commissioners through the DGAP. [Paras 94, 95]Respondent directed to deposit Rs. 1,04,70,664 with interest @18% into Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds (50:50) within three months; default recovery and reporting directions issued.Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable retrospectively - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for profiteering that occurred during 15.11.2017-30.06.2018 - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that Section 171(3A), prescribing penalty for contravention, was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and therefore was not in force during the period when the Respondent's conduct occurred. Consequently, retrospective imposition of that statutory penalty was not permissible. The Authority declined to issue notice for imposition of penalty under the said provision. [Paras 96]Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposed retrospectively; no penalty notice issued for the period 15.11.2017-30.06.2018.Final Conclusion: The Authority found that the Respondent contravened Section 171(1) by failing to pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction (with denial of ITC) and quantified profiteering at Rs. 1,04,70,664 for the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2018; DGAP's channel-wise mathematical methodology was accepted; the Respondent's claim of a twice-yearly price revision practice and other defenses were rejected; the Respondent is directed to reduce prices and to deposit the profiteered amount with interest @18% into the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds (50:50) within three months; penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively.

Benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in price - calculation of profiteering by comparing pre GST CENVAT/ITC ratios with post GST ITC ratios - inclusion of excess tax collected in profiteered amount - reversal/adjustment of ITC for unsold units on issuance of Completion Certificate - investigation of other project phases under Section 171(2)Benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in price - calculation of profiteering by comparing pre GST CENVAT/ITC ratios with post GST ITC ratios - inclusion of excess tax collected in profiteered amount - Whether the Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of input tax credit consequent to implementation of GST for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and, if so, the quantum and remedy. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation and computations that compared the ratio of CENVAT/ITC (pre GST period) with ITC (post GST period) relevant to sold carpet area, concluding that the Respondent obtained additional ITC post GST (10.25% of taxable turnover for Phase I) which ought to have been passed on by way of commensurate reduction in base price. The Respondent's contentions - that (a) pre GST CENVAT/credits were available and therefore no additional benefit arose, (b) credits attributable to subcontractors do not constitute benefit, (c) tax rate differentials and increased tax incidence negate any benefit, (d) the computation methodology was incorrect, and (e) prospective application or other procedural/contention based objections - were examined and rejected: the Authority found (i) no admissible CENVAT/ITC for the statutory pre GST comparison period relied upon by the DGAP, (ii) the full ITC actually availed in the post GST period (provisional subject to reversal for unsold units) constituted the additional benefit to be tested for passing on, (iii) the DGAP's mathematical methodology (ratios applied to turnover and sold area) was appropriate and consistent with Section 171(1) and prior practice in real estate cases, and (iv) excess GST collected on the higher base price formed part of the profiteered amount and must also be returned or adjusted. The Authority also addressed the Respondent's procedural and evidentiary claims and found the DGAP had dealt with issues raised and that the Authority gave the Respondent hearings as required. On this basis the Authority determined the DGAP's computed base profiteered amount and the total profiteered amount (including GST) to be correct for the period under investigation. [Paras 71, 74, 84, 124, 125]Profiteering established; total profiteered amount determined as Rs. 6,24,48,008 for 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 (inclusive of applicable GST). The Respondent is directed to pay this amount to the eligible flat buyers as per Annexure 17 within three months, with interest at 18% per annum from the date of collection until payment; further directed to reduce future prices commensurate with ITC benefit.Reversal/adjustment of ITC for unsold units on issuance of Completion Certificate - investigation of other project phases under Section 171(2) - Whether further investigation is required in respect of Phase II and Phase III of the project (registered under same GSTIN and sharing common ITC pool). - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that all three phases are under the same GSTIN, file common returns and draw ITC from a common pool; consequently there are sufficient grounds to examine passing on of ITC benefit for Phase II and Phase III under Section 171(2). The Authority directed reinvestigation of these two phases by the DGAP under the prescribed rule so that benefit attributable to those phases may be determined and, if required, passed on to respective buyers. This is a directed remand for fresh investigation and report under Rule 133(5). [Paras 128]DGAP directed to investigate Phase II and Phase III and submit report under Rule 133(5) read with Section 171(2).Final Conclusion: The Authority finds that the Respondent contravened Section 171(1) by not passing on the additional benefit of ITC for Phase I during 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and fixes the profiteered amount at Rs. 6,24,48,008 (inclusive of GST). The Respondent must pay this sum to the eligible buyers within three months with 18% interest and reduce future prices commensurate with ITC benefit; the DGAP is directed to investigate Phase II and Phase III and report back for further action.

Failure to pass on benefit of additional input tax credit - violation of Section 171(1) (failure to pass on ITC benefit) - imposition of penalty for anti profiteering violations - non retroactivity of penal provisions (Section 171(3A))Failure to pass on benefit of additional input tax credit - violation of Section 171(1) (failure to pass on ITC benefit) - The Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional input tax credit to homebuyers in the project "Orchard Avenue-93" for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and thereby violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - Having considered the DGAP's investigative report, the submissions and materials placed before the Authority, and the Respondent's own statement that he was in the process of transferring the benefit but without producing evidence of doing so, the Authority concluded that the Respondent did not pass on the additional ITC benefit to the applicant and other homebuyers for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. The Authority therefore upheld the finding of profiteering and non compliance with the obligation to pass on ITC under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.Violation of Section 171(1) established for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018; profiteered amount previously determined.Imposition of penalty for anti profiteering violations - non retroactivity of penal provisions (Section 171(3A)) - Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 could not be imposed for violations occurring between 01.07.2017 and 31.12.2018 because the provision came into force only w.e.f. 01.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A) (inserted by the Finance Act, 2019) prescribing specific penalty for contravention of Section 171(1) came into effect on 01.01.2020. Since the Respondent's violation occurred during 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, and no penalty provision existed for that period, the Authority held that the penal provision 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.Penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) withdrawn and dropped as retrospective imposition is not permissible.Final Conclusion: The Authority upheld that the Respondent failed to pass on additional ITC to buyers for 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 (violation of Section 171(1)); but, because specific penalty provisions were introduced only w.e.f. 01.01.2020, penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) were withdrawn and dropped.

Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in prices - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax - Anti-profiteering - DGAP investigation under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - recomputation of profiteering under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax - commensurate reduction in prices - Whether the GST rate on admission to cinematograph exhibitions was reduced w.e.f. 1-1-2019 and whether the benefit of such reduction was required to be passed on to recipients under Section 171. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded that the Central Government reduced GST rates on admission to cinematograph exhibitions w.e.f. 1-1-2019 and that, under Section 171, any reduction in rate of tax must be passed on to recipients by way of a commensurate monetary reduction in price. The DGAP's investigation and the Respondent's replies were examined and it was found that although the Respondent charged the lower tax rate post 1-1-2019, for certain ticket categories he raised the base price so that the final payable price to consumers remained unchanged; this practice nullified the effect of the tax-rate reduction. The Authority therefore accepted that the legal obligation to pass on the benefit existed and that mere charging of the lower tax rate on an increased base price did not satisfy Section 171. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 21, 22]The reduction in GST rate w.e.f. 1-1-2019 is recognized and the Respondent was required, under Section 171, to pass on the benefit by way of commensurate reduction in prices; charging lower tax on an increased base price does not discharge that obligation.Commensurate reduction in prices - DGAP investigation under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - recomputation of profiteering under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the Respondent profiteered in respect of First Class and Second Class admission tickets and the consequent course of action on quantification. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP's tabulation of pre- and post-rate-reduction prices showed that for First Class and Second Class tickets the base prices increased after the rate reduction so that final prices remained unchanged, resulting in profiteering for the period examined. The Respondent did reduce base prices for these categories between 11-3-2019 and 8-5-2019, and the DGAP excluded that period from computation. The Authority found profiteering established for the First and Second Class categories but confined the relevant period for calculation up to 10-3-2019 because the Respondent complied with Section 171 from 11-3-2019. Consequently, the Authority directed the DGAP to recompute the amount of profiteering in accordance with these observations under Rule 133(4). [Paras 12, 13, 16, 28, 29]Profiteering is established for First Class and Second Class tickets for the period up to 10-3-2019; the DGAP is directed to recompute the profiteered amount in accordance with the Authority's findings.No stocking/ITC irrelevant - pricing prerogative not defense to Section 171 - Whether the Respondent's defenses - absence of stocking/ITC benefit, state-prescribed price ranges, producer/distributor control of prices, and pricing of different movies as distinct products - absolved him of liability under Section 171. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered and rejected the Respondent's contentions that (a) no ITC benefit accrued because services were supplied without stocking, (b) ticket prices were controlled by State limits or producers/distributors, and (c) different films constitute different products permitting new pricing. The DGAP found no documentary evidence to substantiate claims of state-fixed rates or producer-imposed pricing, and the Authority observed that irrespective of who set or influenced ticket prices, a registered supplier is obliged under Section 171 to pass on tax-rate reductions to recipients. The characterisation of different films as separate products was held immaterial where the service (admission to exhibition at the same cinema) is the same. [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26]The stated defenses are not accepted; they do not relieve the Respondent of the obligation under Section 171 to pass on the benefit of tax-rate reduction to recipients.Final Conclusion: The Authority held that the GST rate reduction w.e.f. 1-1-2019 attracted the Section 171 obligation to pass on benefits; profiteering was found in respect of First and Second Class tickets for the period up to 10-3-2019, the Respondent's defenses were rejected, and the DGAP has been directed to recompute the profiteered amount in accordance with the Authority's findings under Rule 133(4).

Profiteering - failure to pass on benefit of additional Input Tax Credit - verification of compliance by jurisdictional authority - penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non retrospectivity of penal provisionProfiteering - failure to pass on benefit of additional Input Tax Credit - verification of compliance by jurisdictional authority - Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to buyers of the project for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and subsequently complied with the Authority's order; compliance was verified by the jurisdictional GST officer. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation and earlier determination that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to purchasers in the Project 'Synera' for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. The Respondent, in compliance with the Authority's Order No. 60/2019 dated 21.11.2019, transferred the benefit to the buyers. The jurisdictional officer (Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST), Gurugram (East)) verified the compliance and reported that the profiteered amounts along with interest had been distributed to residential and commercial buyers, confirming that the direction to pass on benefit was implemented. [Paras 2, 6, 7]The Respondent had violated Section 171(1) by not passing on additional ITC for 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, but has since passed on the benefit and such compliance has been verified by the jurisdictional authority.Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non retrospectivity of penal provision - Penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 because that penal provision came into force only w.e.f. 01.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A) (introduced by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019) came into force from 01.01.2020. The Respondent's contravention occurred between 01.07.2017 and 31.12.2018, a period during which no specific penalty under Section 171(3A) existed. Applying the principle that penal provisions are not to be given retrospective effect, the Authority held that the penalty prescribed by Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed for past conduct predating its commencement. Consequently, the earlier notice for imposition of penalty issued to the Respondent was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 3, 5, 8]Notice for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is withdrawn and the penalty proceedings are dropped since the provision is not retrospective and came into force on 01.01.2020.Final Conclusion: The Authority confirmed that the Respondent had failed to pass on the benefit of additional ITC for 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 but has since complied and the compliance was verified; penal proceedings under Section 171(3A) were withdrawn and dropped as that penal provision is not retrospective.

Failure to pass on benefit of tax reduction - determination of profiteered amount - imposition of penalty for incorrect or false invoices - absence of penal liability under the existing provision relied upon - non-retrospective application of subsequently enacted penal provision - deposit of profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare FundFailure to pass on benefit of tax reduction - determination of profiteered amount - The respondent did not pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction on footwear and was liable for profiteering for the stated period. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation and report that when GST on footwear was reduced from 18% to 5% the respondent failed to pass on the benefit to customers. After notice and hearing, the Authority determined the profiteered amount in respect of the period 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 and held the respondent to be in violation of the obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The record also shows that the respondent subsequently deposited the determined profiteered amount and interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds. [Paras 2, 7]The respondent violated Section 171(1) for the period 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 and the profiteered amount as determined by the Authority stands; the respondent has deposited that amount and interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds.Imposition of penalty for incorrect or false invoices - absence of penal liability under the existing provision relied upon - Whether penalty under the penal provision relied upon (Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017) could be imposed for the failure to pass on the benefit under Section 171(1). - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered whether the respondent's act of charging excess consideration and GST amounted to an offence under Section 122(1)(i). Upon examination, it found that Section 122(1)(i) does not cover the specific omission of not passing on tax reduction benefits under Section 171(1). Therefore the penalty contemplated by Section 122(1)(i) could not be lawfully imposed for the contravention of the anti-profiteering obligation as constituted by Section 171(1). [Paras 3, 8]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) cannot be imposed for the failure to pass on benefits under Section 171(1) because that provision does not encompass the anti-profiteering violation.Non-retrospective application of subsequently enacted penal provision - Whether the penal provision subsequently inserted into the statute could be applied retrospectively to impose penalty for the respondent's conduct during 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that Section 171(3A), providing a specific penalty for breach of Section 171(1), was inserted by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and came into force with effect from 01.01.2020. Since no specific penalty for contravention of Section 171(1) existed at the time the respondent committed the act (27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018), the newly enacted penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the show cause notice issued under Section 122(1)(i) was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 9]The later-inserted penal provision (Section 171(3A)) is not applicable retrospectively; penalty proceedings are withdrawn and dropped.Final Conclusion: The Authority upheld the determination that the respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on the GST rate reduction for the period 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 and recorded deposit of the profiteered amount and interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds; however, it held that penalty under Section 122(1)(i) could not be imposed for that violation and that the subsequently enacted specific penal provision could not be applied retrospectively, consequently withdrawing and dropping the penalty proceedings.

Profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in prices - benefit of reduction in rate of tax - quantification of profiteering - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - non-retrospective application of penalty under Section 171(3A) - Authority's power to examine under Section 171Benefit of reduction in rate of tax - commensurate reduction in prices - Authority's power to examine under Section 171 - Whether the reduction in GST rate on admission to cinematograph exhibitions required the Respondent to pass on the benefit to recipients during the investigation period. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP finding that the Central and State Governments reduced the GST rates applicable to specified categories of cinema admission tickets effective 01.01.2019 and that, under Section 171(1), any reduction in the rate of tax must be passed on to recipients by way of a commensurate reduction in prices. The period of investigation was fixed as 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. The Respondent did not contest the factual reduction in rates nor file submissions to rebut the DGAP's analysis. On the evidence before it, the Authority concluded that the legal requirement to pass on the benefit applied to the Respondent for the stated period and that the Authority was empowered to examine compliance therewith under Section 171(2). [Paras 10, 11, 19, 20, 23]The reduction in GST rate effective 01.01.2019 was required to be passed on to recipients and the Authority had jurisdiction to examine compliance for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019.Profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - quantification of profiteering - commensurate reduction in prices - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - Whether the Respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing on the rate reduction and, if so, quantification of the profiteered amount and consequent directions. - HELD THAT: - Accepting the DGAP's examination, the Authority found that the Respondent maintained pre-rate-reduction cum-tax prices by increasing base prices for the Emerald Circle and Dress Circle categories, thereby not passing the benefit of the rate reduction to recipients. Sales data and computations in Table-A and Table-B were relied upon to determine that there was no reduction in cum-tax prices and that the Respondent had increased base prices post-rate change. The DGAP's computed profiteered amount for the investigation period was accepted. As recipients were not identifiable, the Authority applied the statutory mechanism under the Rules to require deposit of the profiteered amount into Consumer Welfare Funds. The Respondent was directed to reduce ticket prices in accordance with the rate reduction and to deposit the quantified profiteered amount along with interest at 18% from the date of collection until deposit; failure to deposit within three months would invite recovery proceedings. [Paras 15, 16, 17, 22, 24]The Respondent contravened Section 171 for the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019; profiteering was quantified at Rs. 5,31,625/- and the Respondent was directed to reduce prices, deposit that amount (in equal parts to the Central and Telangana State Consumer Welfare Funds) with interest at 18%, and comply with monitoring by Commissioners CGST/SGST.Non-retrospective application of penalty under Section 171(3A) - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for the profiteering which occurred during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A) prescribing penalty was inserted into the CGST Act w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The Authority observed that the profiteering occurred during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, a period prior to the insertion and commencement of Section 171(3A). On that basis, the Authority concluded that the statutory penalty could not be imposed retrospectively for conduct occurring before the provision came into force and therefore notice for imposition of penalty was not required. [Paras 25]Penalty under Section 171(3A) was not imposed because the provision was not in force during the period of the contravention.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's findings that the Respondent failed to pass on the GST rate reduction to recipients for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, quantified profiteering at Rs. 5,31,625/-, ordered reduction of ticket prices and deposit of the profiteered amount with 18% interest into the Central and Telangana State Consumer Welfare Funds in equal parts, and declined to impose penalty under Section 171(3A) as that provision was not in force during the period of contravention.

Passage of benefit of reduction in rate of tax by commensurate reduction in price - computation of profiteered amount by comparison of pre reduction average base price with post reduction actual selling price - obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - regularisation of voluntary deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - non-imposition of penalty where statutory penal provision not yet in force for the default periodComputation of profiteered amount by comparison of pre reduction average base price with post reduction actual selling price - mathematical methodology to determine profiteering under Section 171(1) - The mathematical methodology employed by the DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is correct, appropriate, reasonable and in consonance with Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's approach of taking class wise transaction data for the pre reduction period, computing average base price (total taxable value divided by number of tickets) and comparing that average base price (converted to a commensurate post reduction selling price) with the actual selling prices after rate reduction. The Court held that because the respondent sold tickets at varied prices, actual transaction values had to be used rather than a simple pre v post average comparison. The methodology is a mathematical exercise consistent with the requirement that benefit of tax reduction be passed on to each SKU/unit/service, and therefore the DGAP's computations were justified and relyable. [Paras 18]DGAP's mathematical methodology for computing profiteering upheld.Passage of benefit of reduction in rate of tax by commensurate reduction in price - obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - The respondent did not pass on the commensurate benefit of reduction in GST rate to its customers for the period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and thereby contravened Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that notification reducing the rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 applied to admission to cinematograph exhibitions above Rs.100. Applying the DGAP's validated methodology to the respondent's class wise ticket data, the Authority concluded that base prices had been increased (so that MRPs remained unchanged) during 01.01.2019-06.01.2019, resulting in denial of the commensurate benefit to customers. The Authority reiterated that Section 171(1) mandates passing the benefit to each supply (each SKU/unit/service) by way of commensurate price reduction and that no state regulation could absolve the supplier of this statutory obligation. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 22]Contravention of Section 171(1) established for period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019; profiteered amount determined accordingly.Regularisation of voluntary deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - refund/adjustment where recipients not identifiable - The respondent's voluntary deposit of the computed profiteered amount with interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds is regularised and no further recovery of that amount is ordered. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP reported that the respondent had deposited the computed profiteered amount along with interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds prior to initiation of the Authority's proceedings. Given that the recipients of the benefit could not be identified, and that the respondent had reduced prices w.e.f. 07.01.2019, the Authority held that the earlier deposit may be confirmed and regularised in accordance with Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, obviating the need for any duplicate direction for payment of the same amount. [Paras 13, 22]Voluntary deposit by respondent in Consumer Welfare Funds accepted and regularised; no duplicate payment ordered.Non-imposition of penalty where statutory penal provision not yet in force for the default period - No penalty under Section 171(3A) is imposed because that penal provision came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 while the contravention related to 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and the respondent had already deposited the profiteered amount with interest. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted the temporal application of the penal provision and the fact that the infringement pre dated the effective date of Section 171(3A). Coupled with the respondent's prior deposit of the profiteered amount and interest, the Authority exercised its discretion not to impose penalty for the contravention covering 01.01.2019-06.01.2019. [Paras 23]Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposed.Final Conclusion: The Authority upholds the DGAP's methodology and findings, determines profiteering of Rs. 4,20,731 for the period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019, regularises the respondent's voluntary deposit of that amount with interest into the Consumer Welfare Funds and declines to impose penalty since the penal provision became effective after the default period.

Benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in price - methodology of comparing ITC-to-turnover ratios - computation of profiteered amount and refund with interest - non-imposition of penalty by reason of non-retrospectivity of Section 171(3A)Benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology of comparing ITC-to-turnover ratios - Whether the Respondent failed to pass on additional input tax credit to buyers of flats in project PARKWEST-EMERALD and thereby contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's computation comparing the ratio of CENVAT/VAT (pre-GST) to turnover with the ratio of ITC (post-GST) to turnover for the project PARKWEST-EMERALD. The DGAP found the ITC-to-turnover ratio increased from 4.70% (pre-GST) to 6.69% (post-GST), i.e. an additional benefit of 1.99% of turnover. The Authority held that this additional ITC ought to have been passed on by commensurate reduction in basic and cum-tax prices; by charging GST on pre-GST basic prices the Respondent appeared to have contravened Section 171(1). The mathematical approach of prorating ITC to sold area and computing unit-wise benefit was held to be logical and acceptable for determining the quantum due to buyers. The Authority therefore determined the profiteered amount in respect of PARKWEST-EMERALD and directed restitution to eligible buyers with interest. [Paras 33, 34, 64, 65, 91]Additional ITC of 1.99% of turnover accrued; profiteered amount for PARKWEST-EMERALD determined as Rs. 9,67,330/- (inclusive of GST); Respondent directed to return this amount to identified buyers with interest @18% p.a. within three months.Benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - computation of profiteered amount and refund with interest - Whether the Respondent failed to pass on additional input tax credit to buyers of flats in project PARKWEST-MAPLE and thereby contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT: - Using the same ITC-to-turnover comparison methodology for the PARKWEST-MAPLE project, the DGAP computed an increase in the ratio from 1.97% (pre-GST) to 5.59% (post-GST), i.e. an additional benefit of 3.62% of turnover. The Authority accepted that the Respondent did not pass on this additional ITC to eligible buyers and held that the additional benefit must be passed on. The DGAP's unit-wise computation identifying affected buyers was accepted and used to quantify the aggregate profiteered amount for the period under investigation. [Paras 33, 34, 64, 65, 92]Additional ITC of 3.62% of turnover accrued; profiteered amount for PARKWEST-MAPLE determined as Rs. 3,03,94,113/- (inclusive of GST), of which Rs. 74,929/- relates to Applicant No.2; Respondent directed to return amounts to identified buyers with interest @18% p.a. within three months.Commensurate reduction in price - computation of profiteered amount and refund with interest - monitoring and compliance by tax authorities - Remedial directions: manner and monitoring of refund and reduction in prices and the period for compliance - HELD THAT: - The Authority ordered that the Respondent reduce prices commensurate with the additional ITC for the two projects and refund the identified profiteered amounts to the eligible buyers mentioned in the DGAP's Annexures. Interest at 18% per annum was directed to be paid from the dates the amounts were collected until payment. The Commissioners of CGST and SGST, Karnataka were directed to monitor implementation and report compliance within four months. The Authority clarified that the investigation covered supplies up to 30.04.2019 and any ITC benefit accruing thereafter must also be passed on by the Respondent; units sold after GST implementation where price already incorporated GST benefit were outside the ambit of this order. [Paras 91, 92, 93, 95]Respondent ordered to pass on benefits/reimburse identified buyers with interest @18% p.a. within three months; Commissioners CGST/SGST to monitor and report compliance within four months.Non-imposition of penalty by reason of non-retrospectivity of Section 171(3A) - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 could be imposed for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019 - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that Section 171(3A), prescribing penalty for violation, was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and therefore was not in force during the period when the contravention occurred (01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019). Consequently, penalty under that provision could not be imposed retrospectively. Having found contravention of Section 171(1), the Authority limited its relief to restitution and interest and did not issue a notice for penalty. [Paras 94]Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposed because the provision was not in force for the period of violation.Final Conclusion: The Authority upheld the DGAP's finding that the Respondent did not pass on additional input tax credit to buyers of flats in projects PARKWEST-EMERALD and PARKWEST-MAPLE for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019, determined profiteered amounts of Rs. 9,67,330/- and Rs. 3,03,94,113/- respectively (including GST), directed refund to identified buyers with interest at 18% p.a. within three months, required monitoring by the Commissioners of CGST/SGST and declined to impose penalty under Section 171(3A) as it was not in force during the period of contravention.

Violation of Section 171(1) - failure to pass on benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering determination and computation of profiteered amount - penalty under Section 122(1)(i) - incorrect or false invoices - absence of penal provision for non compliance with Section 171(1) during the relevant period - insertion of Section 171(3A) by Finance Act, 2019 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 - non retrospectivity of penal provisionsViolation of Section 171(1) - failure to pass on benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering determination and computation of profiteered amount - Respondent did not pass on the benefit of input tax credit to buyers for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and was in violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's investigation and report dated 29.10.2018 and, after notice and hearing, recorded that the Respondent had denied ITC benefit to buyers on introduction of GST with effect from 01.07.2017. The Authority had earlier determined the profiteered amount for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and held the Respondent to be in contravention of Section 171(1). The present order reiterates that finding on the basis of the material placed before the Authority and the DGAP's report. [Paras 2, 6]Finding of violation of Section 171(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 upheld; profiteered amount previously determined by the Authority stands.Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) - incorrect or false invoices - absence of penal provision for non compliance with Section 171(1) during the relevant period - insertion of Section 171(3A) by Finance Act, 2019 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 - non retrospectivity of penal provisions - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) could not be imposed for the respondent's failure to pass on ITC for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018; penalty proceedings withdrawn. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the statutory scheme and observed that no penal provision in Section 122(1)(i) covers failure to pass on benefits of tax reduction or ITC arising under Section 171(1). Although Finance Act, 2019 subsequently inserted Section 171(3A) prescribing specific penalty with effect from 01.01.2020, those penal provisions were not in existence during the period when the contravention occurred. Consequently, the later enacted penal provision could not be applied retrospectively. On that basis the show cause notice seeking imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) was found unsustainable and was withdrawn; the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 7, 9]Notice for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) withdrawn; penalty proceedings dropped because no applicable penal provision existed for the contravention in the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and subsequent Section 171(3A) is not retrospective.Final Conclusion: The Authority confirms that the respondent failed to pass on ITC benefits and was liable for profiteering for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 (amount previously determined). However, penalty proceedings under Section 122(1)(i) are unsustainable and withdrawn because no penalty provision applied to the anti profiteering contravention during that period and the later insertion of Section 171(3A) is not retrospective.

Failure to pass on benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) - determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) and Rule 133(1) - imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) - prospective operation of penal provision - non-retrospectivity of penal statuteFailure to pass on benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) - determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) and Rule 133(1) - Respondent violated the obligation to pass on benefit of input tax credit to buyers for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and was held to have indulged in profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP, by report dated 04.06.2019, investigated complaints and found that the respondent did not reduce prices of flats to pass on ITC benefit from 01.07.2017. This Authority, after hearing, accepted the DGAP's findings and, in Order No. 67/2019 dated 09.12.2019, determined the profiteered amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. On review of the material and submissions, the Authority reaffirms that the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of ITC and thereby contravened Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. [Paras 2, 6]Findings of violation of Section 171(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 are upheld and the determination of profiteered amount stands.Imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) - prospective operation of penal provision - non-retrospectivity of penal statute - Penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed for violations occurring between 01.07.2017 and 31.12.2018 because the penal provision came into force only from 01.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(3A) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and brought into force by Notification No. 01/2020-Central Tax dated 01.01.2020. As no penalty provision existed for contraventions during 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, the penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to that period. Consequently, the notice dated 17.01.2020 seeking imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 7, 8]Penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) are not maintainable for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018; the notice for penalty is withdrawn and the proceedings are dropped.Final Conclusion: The Authority upholds that the respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on ITC benefits for 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and that the earlier determination of profiteering stands; however, penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively for that period, and the penalty proceedings are accordingly withdrawn and dropped.

Obligation to pass on benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - penal liability under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-retrospective operation of penal provisionsObligation to pass on benefit of input tax credit - profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - The Respondent denied benefit of input tax credit to buyers in the specified project for the period and thereby violated the obligation to pass on ITC under Section 171(1). - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's investigation and report and, after hearing the parties, found that the Respondent had not reduced prices of the flats commensurate with the benefit of input tax credit introduced with GST from 01.07.2017. The Authority had earlier determined the profiteered amount for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and recorded that the Respondent compelled buyers to pay higher prices and GST by denying the ITC benefit. On the material before it, the Authority concluded that the Respondent violated the statutory obligation to pass on ITC under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. [Paras 2, 6]Profiteering established; Respondent held to have violated Section 171(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018.Penal liability under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-retrospective operation of penal provisions - Penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 because the penal provision came into force prospectively from 01.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the Respondent's contention that Section 171(3A), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, was brought into force by notification dated 01.01.2020 and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to conduct occurring between 01.07.2017 and 30.09.2018. Noting that no penalty provision existed for violations of Section 171(1) during the relevant period, and that Section 171(3A) was implemented with effect from 01.01.2020, the Authority held that the penal provision could not be invoked retrospectively. Consequently, the notice proposing penalty under Section 171(3A) was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings dropped. [Paras 5, 7, 8]Penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) withdrawn; penalty not imposed for violations occurring between 01.07.2017 and 30.09.2018.Final Conclusion: The Authority affirmed that the Respondent had perpetrated profiteering by failing to pass on the benefit of input tax credit for 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018, but held that penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively and accordingly withdrew and dropped the penalty proceedings.

Denial of benefit of input tax credit - determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) and Rule 133(1) - violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - prospective operation of penal provision - non retrospective application of penalty - withdrawal of penalty proceedingsDenial of benefit of input tax credit - determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) and Rule 133(1) - violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of input tax credit and thereby violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, with resultant determination of profiteered amount for the period specified. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation and report that the respondent did not reduce prices commensurate with input tax credit following the introduction of GST from 01.07.2017. On consideration of the material and submissions, the Authority held that the respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to buyers in respect of flats in the project and therefore contravened Section 171(1). Consequentially, the profiteered amount for the relevant period was determined in accordance with Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as recorded by the Authority in its earlier order dated 21.10.2019. [Paras 1, 2, 6]The respondent was held to have violated Section 171(1) for the period July, 2017 to October, 2018 and the profiteered amount was determined under the statutory provisions.Imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - prospective operation of penal provision - non retrospective application of penalty - withdrawal of penalty proceedings - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for the respondent's contravention that occurred between 01.07.2017 and 31.10.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that sub section (3A) of Section 171, prescribing a penalty for contravention of Section 171(1), was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and brought into force by notification dated 01.01.2020. As no penal provision existed at the time the contravention occurred (July, 2017 to October, 2018), the Authority concluded that the penalty could not be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice for imposition of penalty issued earlier was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively for the period July, 2017 to October, 2018; the penalty notice is withdrawn and the proceedings are dropped.Final Conclusion: The Authority affirmed that the respondent violated Section 171(1) for the period July, 2017 to October, 2018 and upheld the determination of profiteered amount; however, penalty under Section 171(3A) was not imposed because the penal provision was made effective only from 01.01.2020, and the penalty proceedings have been withdrawn and dropped.

Failure to pass on benefit of Input Tax Credit under Section 171(1) - Determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) - Non-retrospective operation of penal provision inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 - Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable for past violationsFailure to pass on benefit of Input Tax Credit under Section 171(1) - Determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) - Respondent denied benefit of input tax credit to buyers and profiteered in violation of Section 171(1). - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's investigation report and its earlier order dated 05.11.2019 determining the profiteered amount. On review of the material and submissions it is affirmed that the Respondent did not reduce prices commensurately on introduction of GST and thereby failed to pass on the benefit of input tax credit to buyers for the period in question. The Authority records that the profiteered amount had been determined under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) in its earlier order and the finding of violation of Section 171(1) is maintained. [Paras 2, 6]Respondent found to have violated Section 171(1) by not passing on ITC; earlier determination of profiteered amount is affirmed.Non-retrospective operation of penal provision inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 - Penalty under Section 171(3A) not leviable for past violations - Penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed for the period July, 2017 to September, 2018 as the provision came into force on 01.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the statutory scheme and the Notification implementing provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 from 01.01.2020 which inserted sub section 171(3A). Since no penalty provision under Section 171(3A) existed at the time of the Respondent's contravention (July, 2017 to September, 2018), the penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the notice issued for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is withdrawn and the penalty proceedings are dropped. [Paras 7]Notice for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) withdrawn; penalty proceedings dropped as the provision is prospective from 01.01.2020.Final Conclusion: The Authority upholds that the Respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on input tax credit for July, 2017 to September, 2018 and affirms the earlier determination of profiteered amount; however, penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively and the penalty proceedings are withdrawn.

Non passage of benefit of tax rate reduction under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) - penalty not leviable under Section 122(1)(i) for failure to pass on tax benefit - non retroactivity of subsequently inserted penalty provision Section 171(3A) - deposit of determined profiteered amount into Consumer Welfare Fund as complianceNon passage of benefit of tax rate reduction under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act - determination of profiteered amount under Section 171(2) read with Rule 133(1) - Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on sanitary napkins for the period 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 and profiteered amount was determined. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation and report and, after notice and hearing, found that the respondent did not reduce prices commensurately when GST rate was reduced from 12% to nil w.e.f. 27.07.2018. Applying Section 171(2) of the CGST Act read with Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Authority determined the amount of benefit not passed on to buyers for the specified period and held the respondent to have violated Section 171(1). The respondent's subsequent payment of the determined amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund was recorded but did not negate the finding of violation for the stated period. [Paras 2, 6]Violation of Section 171(1) established and profiteered amount for 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 determined.Penalty not leviable under Section 122(1)(i) for failure to pass on tax benefit - non retroactivity of subsequently inserted penalty provision Section 171(3A) - Penalty proceedings under Section 122(1)(i) could not be sustained for the Section 171(1) violation and the later inserted Section 171(3A) penalty provision could not be applied retrospectively. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the penal provisions and concluded that Section 122(1)(i) does not provide for penalty in respect of failure to pass on benefits of tax reduction under Section 171(1); issuance of incorrect or false invoices under Section 122(1)(i) therefore did not legally cover the anti profiteering breach. Further, a specific penalty provision for contravention of Section 171(1) was inserted by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 (i.e. Section 171(3A)), which came into force from 01.01.2020. As no penalty provision for such violation existed at the time the contravention occurred (the relevant period), the Authority held that the later provision could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the show cause notice issued under Section 122(1)(i) was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings dropped. [Paras 7, 8, 9]Notice for penalty under Section 122(1)(i) withdrawn; penalty proceedings dismissed and retrospective application of Section 171(3A) rejected.Final Conclusion: The Authority confirmed that the respondent violated Section 171(1) for the period 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 and determined the profiteered amount, but held that no penalty could be imposed under Section 122(1)(i) for that violation and that the penalty provision later inserted as Section 171(3A) cannot be applied retrospectively; the penalty proceedings were therefore dropped.

Failure to pass on benefit of tax rate reduction (anti profiteering) - violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - penal liability under Section 122(1)(i) for issuance of incorrect or false invoices - non retroactivity of penal provisions and prospective operation of Section 171(3A) (Finance Act, 2019)Failure to pass on benefit of tax rate reduction (anti profiteering) - violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Respondent had violated the anti profiteering obligation by not passing on the GST rate reduction for the specified product during the stated period. - HELD THAT: - The Authority upheld the DGAP's finding and its earlier order that the Respondent did not reduce the price commensurately when the GST rate was reduced from 18% to 12%, and thereby denied benefit to buyers for the period specified. The Authority had earlier determined the profiteered amount and recorded that the Respondent had compelled buyers to pay excess consideration and GST on that excess, concluding a breach of Section 171(1). The Respondent has since accepted and paid the amount as directed. [Paras 2, 6]Finding of violation of Section 171(1) and determination of the profiteered amount for the period 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 affirmed; Respondent has paid the amount as directed.Penal liability under Section 122(1)(i) for issuance of incorrect or false invoices - Whether penalty under Section 122(1)(i) could be imposed for the Respondent's failure to pass on the benefit under Section 171(1). - HELD THAT: - On examination of Section 122(1)(i), the Authority concluded that that provision does not cover a failure to pass on benefits under Section 171(1) and does not prescribe penalty specifically for non compliance with anti profiteering obligations. The show cause notice issued under Section 122(1)(i) on that basis therefore lacked statutory foundation. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) cannot be imposed for the violation of Section 171(1) in the facts of this case.Non retroactivity of penal provisions and prospective operation of Section 171(3A) (Finance Act, 2019) - Whether the penalty regime inserted by Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A)) effective 01.01.2020 could be applied retrospectively to conduct occurring between 15.11.2017 and 31.03.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that specific penal provisions for violation of Section 171(1) were introduced by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 by inserting Section 171(3A) with effect from 01.01.2020. As no corresponding penalty provision existed during the period when the Respondent committed the violation, the newly inserted penalty cannot be applied retrospectively. Consequently, initiating penalty proceedings against the Respondent on that statutory basis for the earlier period was impermissible. [Paras 8, 9]Section 171(3A) (Finance Act, 2019) is prospective; penalty proceedings based on it cannot be applied to the period of violation and are therefore dropped.Final Conclusion: The Authority affirmed the finding of failure to pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction and the previously determined profiteered amount (which has been paid), but held that no penalty could be imposed under Section 122(1)(i) for that breach and that the penal provision later introduced by the Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A)) cannot be applied retrospectively; the penalty proceedings are withdrawn and dropped.

Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - anti-profiteering - non availment of ITC - effect of Occupancy Certificate on availability of ITCBenefit of input tax credit - non availment of ITC - effect of Occupancy Certificate on availability of ITC - Entitlement of the applicant to benefit of input tax credit in respect of construction service supplied by the respondent - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined whether any additional ITC accrued to the respondent after introduction of GST (w.e.f. 01.07.2017) in respect of the project under investigation. The DGAP's factual findings, supported by the respondent's statutory returns and documents, show that the respondent had not availed any CENVAT/ITC in the pre-GST and post-GST periods for the project, had defaulted in payment and filing of Service Tax and GST returns, and that the Occupancy Certificate for the project was obtained on 11.04.2018, after which ITC in respect of that project could not be availed as per the applicable provision. On these findings, the Authority concluded that no additional benefit of ITC accrued to the respondent in the post GST period and therefore the applicant was not entitled to any benefit of ITC from the respondent. [Paras 15, 16, 17, 24, 25]No entitlement to benefit of ITC was established against the respondent for the period under investigation.Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering - Whether the respondent violated the anti profiteering obligation under Section 171 by not passing on the benefit of ITC or reduction in tax rate - HELD THAT: - Section 171(1) mandates passing on to recipients any reduction in tax rate or benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The Authority noted there was no reduction in the rate of tax in the post GST period relevant to this case and, critically, that no ITC benefit had been availed by the respondent post GST. Since the statutory prerequisite - accrual/availment of additional ITC or reduction in tax rate - was not present, there was no legal basis to find that the respondent failed to pass on any benefit. Consequently, the anti profiteering provision was not attracted. [Paras 20, 24, 25, 26]Provisions of Section 171(1) are not contravened; allegation of profiteering is not established and the complaint is dismissed.Final Conclusion: On the DGAP's findings and the material on record (investigation period 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019), no additional ITC accrued to the respondent and no reduction in tax rate occurred; therefore the anti profiteering provision under Section 171 was not attracted and the application is dismissed.

Passing on benefit of reduction in rate of tax by way of commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering under Section 171 - commensurate reduction in prices (mathematical computation of profiteered amount) - regulated market and state-controlled ticket pricing - consumer welfare fund deposit as remediation - procedural compliance under Rule 129(6) and Rule 133Passing on benefit of reduction in rate of tax by way of commensurate reduction in prices - commensurate reduction in prices (mathematical computation of profiteered amount) - Whether the Respondent passed on the commensurate benefit of the GST rate reduction to his customers. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that the statutory requirement is that any reduction in the rate of tax must be passed on to recipients by way of a commensurate reduction in prices. The DGAP's methodology - taking class-wise transaction data for the pre-rate-reduction period, computing average base price (taxable value divided by number of tickets) and comparing that average base price with actual selling prices post rate reduction to quantify the shortfall per ticket - was accepted as correct and appropriate. Application of that methodology showed that for the period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 the Respondent did not reduce prices commensurately and thereby realised an excess amount. The Authority noted that with effect from 07.01.2019 the Respondent revised prices to give effect to the rate reduction. [Paras 33, 34, 35]The Respondent failed to pass on the commensurate benefit of the GST rate reduction for the period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019; the DGAP's computation of profiteering is upheld.Anti-profiteering under Section 171 - regulated market and state-controlled ticket pricing - Whether the Respondent violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on the tax rate reduction benefit. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that Section 171(1) unambiguously mandates passing on tax rate reductions to each recipient for each taxable supply; this obligation is not displaced by state regulations fixing maximum ticket prices or by the regulated-market status of cinema exhibition. The Respondent's contentions based on state control of ticket pricing and absence of specific guidelines were rejected because the CGST/SGST framework governs passing on of tax reductions. Applying Section 171(1) to the facts (and relying on the DGAP calculations), the Authority concluded that the Respondent contravened Section 171(1) for the stated period. [Paras 33, 36, 37, 38]The Respondent contravened Section 171(1) by not passing on the tax-rate reduction to customers for 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019; state regulatory controls do not absolve the obligation under Section 171(1).Consumer welfare fund deposit as remediation - procedural compliance under Rule 129(6) and Rule 133 - Whether the amount voluntarily deposited by the Respondent into the Consumer Welfare Fund regularises his liability and whether any further monetary direction or penalty is required. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP reported that the Respondent had voluntarily deposited the differential amount (computed as profiteered) along with interest into the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) prior to the Authority's order. The Authority accepted that the recipients of the benefit were not identifiable and that deposit into the CWF in accordance with Rule 133(3)(c) is the prescribed remediation where recipients cannot be identified. Consequently, the profiteered amount as computed (and reflected in the DGAP's Table-B) is determined and the deposit is to be regularised. As the penal provision under Section 171(3A) came into force only w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and the infringement related to 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019, and given the deposit with interest, the Authority declined to impose penalty. [Paras 43, 44]The DGAP's determination of the profiteered amount is confirmed and the Respondent's deposit into the CWF with interest regularises the liability; no penalty is imposed.Final Conclusion: The Authority upheld the DGAP's finding that the Respondent did not pass on the GST rate reduction to customers for 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and determined the profiteered amount accordingly; the Respondent had, however, voluntarily deposited the computed amount with interest into the Consumer Welfare Fund and, in view of the timing of the penal provision and the deposit, no penalty was imposed and no further monetary direction was required.

Violation of the anti profiteering obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 not applicable to failure to pass on tax rate reduction - Non retrospective operation of penal provision inserted as Section 171(3A) by the Finance Act, 2019Violation of the anti profiteering obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Respondent did not pass on benefit of reduction in GST rate and thereby violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation and report that the respondent failed to pass the reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% on specified products w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Having considered the material and the respondent's submissions, the Authority found that the benefit of tax reduction was not passed to recipients for the stated period and thus the respondent contravened the anti profiteering obligation created by Section 171(1). [Paras 6]The respondent breached the obligation under Section 171(1) for the tax period 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018.Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 not applicable to failure to pass on tax rate reduction - Section 122(1)(i) does not provide for penalty for non passing of benefits under Section 171(1), and therefore penalty could not be imposed under that provision. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the penal provisions of the CGST Act and concluded that Section 122(1)(i), which deals with issuance of incorrect or false invoices and specified offences, does not cover the distinct duty of passing on tax reductions mandated by Section 171(1). As a result, the show cause notice issued under Section 122(1)(i) for the alleged failure to pass on benefit could not be sustained because the penal provision invoked did not encompass the anti profiteering contravention. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) cannot be imposed for violation of Section 171(1).Non retrospective operation of penal provision inserted as Section 171(3A) by the Finance Act, 2019 - The penal provision later inserted as Section 171(3A) w.e.f. 01.01.2020 cannot be applied retrospectively to conduct occurring between 15.11.2017 and 31.08.2018; accordingly, the penalty proceedings are withdrawn. - HELD THAT: - A specific penalty for breach of Section 171(1) was introduced by insertion of Section 171(3A) via the Finance Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.01.2020. Since no such penal provision existed at the time of the respondent's contravention (15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018), the Authority held that the later enacted penalty cannot be retroactively imposed. Consequently, the notice seeking imposition of penalty was withdrawn and the penalty proceedings were dropped. [Paras 8, 9]Penalty under the subsequently inserted Section 171(3A) cannot be applied retrospectively to the period in question; penalty proceedings are withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The Authority reaffirmed that the respondent violated the anti profiteering obligation under Section 171(1) for the period 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018, but held that neither Section 122(1)(i) nor the penal provision later inserted as Section 171(3A) (effective 01.01.2020) could lawfully be applied to impose penalty for that period; accordingly the penalty proceedings are withdrawn.

Violation of Section 171(1) - failure to pass on benefit of input tax credit - penal liability under Section 122(1)(i) for issuance of incorrect/false invoice or charging excess consideration - non-retroactivity of penal provision inserted by Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A))Violation of Section 171(1) - failure to pass on benefit of input tax credit - Respondent's failure to pass on additional input tax credit to home buyers in the specified project for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018. - HELD THAT: - Having considered the DGAP report and the material placed before it, the Authority found that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the complainant and other home buyers in the project for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 and thereby contravened the mandate of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act. The Authority's earlier determination of profiteered amount and the finding of violation are affirmed in the present proceedings as recorded by the Authority. [Paras 6]Respondent was held to have violated Section 171(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018.Penal liability under Section 122(1)(i) for issuance of incorrect/false invoice or charging excess consideration - Whether penalty under Section 122(1)(i) can be imposed on the respondent for the contravention of Section 171(1) in respect of the period 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined Section 122(1)(i) and concluded that that provision does not encompass the specific failure to pass on the benefit of tax reduction or ITC under Section 171(1). Although the respondent had charged excess consideration and GST from buyers, the statutory language of Section 122(1)(i) does not provide for penalising the particular anti profiteering contravention; accordingly, penalty under Section 122(1)(i) could not legitimately be invoked for the Section 171(1) violation committed during the relevant period. [Paras 7]Penalty under Section 122(1)(i) cannot be imposed for the respondent's violation of Section 171(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018.Non-retroactivity of penal provision inserted by Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A)) - Whether the penal provision inserted by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A)) effective 01.01.2020 can be applied retrospectively to impose penalty for violations committed during 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that specific penal machinery for contraventions of Section 171(1) was introduced only by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 (inserting Section 171(3A)) with effect from 01.01.2020. As no penalty provision existed for such contraventions during the period in which the respondent committed the breach, the later statutory provision cannot be applied retrospectively to penalise past conduct. Consequently, the show cause notice seeking imposition of penalty (issued under Section 122(1)(i)) was without basis and is withdrawn; the penalty proceedings are dropped. [Paras 8, 9]The penal provision inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A)) cannot be applied retrospectively; penalty proceedings are withdrawn and dropped.Final Conclusion: The Authority affirmed that the respondent breached Section 171(1) for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 but held that neither Section 122(1)(i) nor the penal provision subsequently inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 (Section 171(3A) effective 01.01.2020) could be used to impose penalty for that past breach; the show cause notice dated 11.03.2019 is withdrawn and the penalty proceedings are dropped.