Respondent violated CGST Act by not passing on Input Tax Credit benefits, resulting in profiteering. Penalty dropped.

The Authority found that the Respondent violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act by not passing on additional Input Tax Credit benefits to buyers, resulting in profiteering. The profiteered amount was determined at Rs. 41,82,198 for a specified period. Although the Respondent eventually passed on the benefits to buyers, a penalty was initially considered but later withdrawn as penalty provisions were not in place during the relevant period. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were dropped, and the case was closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-passing of benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to buyers.
2. Determination of profiteered amount.
3. Imposition of penalty for violation of anti-profiteering provisions.
4. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding penalty imposition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-passing of benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to buyers:
The Applicant No. 2 (DGAP) submitted a report on 28.11.2018, indicating that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to 125 buyers, including Applicant No. 1, as required by Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent was found to have denied ITC benefits amounting to Rs. 41,82,198/- for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018, thereby indulging in profiteering.

2. Determination of profiteered amount:
After reviewing the DGAP's report, the Authority issued a notice to the Respondent on 07.12.2018 to show cause why the report should not be accepted. The Authority, in its Order No. 34/2019 dated 24.05.2019, determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 41,82,198/- for the specified period and confirmed the violation of Section 171 (1). The Respondent accepted the findings and provided details of the ITC benefit passed on to the buyers, including the Applicant No. 1, amounting to Rs. 59,57,306/- by 31.01.2019.

3. Imposition of penalty for violation of anti-profiteering provisions:
The Authority observed that the Respondent had passed on the ITC benefits only after the initiation of proceedings, indicating a deliberate violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Respondent was liable for a penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017. A notice was issued to the Respondent on 27.05.2019 for the imposition of the penalty.

4. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding penalty imposition:
The Respondent argued against the imposition of the penalty, citing a bona fide belief in compliance with Section 171 and the absence of prescribed methodology for calculating the ITC benefits at the time. The Respondent referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which emphasized that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or where there is a bona fide belief in compliance.

The Authority considered the Respondent's arguments and noted that no penalty provisions were in place for violations of Section 171 (1) during the relevant period (01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018). Section 171 (3A), introduced by the Finance Act, 2019, which provides for penalties, came into force on 01.01.2020 and cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the notice for penalty imposition under Section 122 (1) (i) was withdrawn, and the penalty proceedings were dropped.

Conclusion:
The Authority concluded that the Respondent violated Section 171 (1) by not passing on the ITC benefits timely but could not impose a penalty retrospectively due to the absence of specific penalty provisions during the period of violation. The penalty proceedings were thus withdrawn, and the case was closed.

---