Authority finds Respondent guilty of not passing GST benefits to customers, penalty dropped

The National Anti-Profiteering Authority found the Respondent guilty of not passing on the benefit of reduced GST rates to customers, violating Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority determined the profiteered amount and held the Respondent in violation of Section 171(1) and Section 122(1) for collecting extra amounts from consumers. However, as the penalty provisions for the violation were introduced after the incident, the Authority concluded that the penalty could not be imposed retrospectively. Consequently, the penalty proceedings against the Respondent were dropped, and the notice for penalty imposition was withdrawn.

---

---

Issues:
1. Violation of provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 122(1) for profiteering.
3. Applicability of penalty provisions for violation of Section 171(1) retrospectively.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an investigation by the DGAP based on a complaint regarding the Respondent's failure to pass on the benefit of reduced GST rates on certain products. The DGAP found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction to customers, amounting to a specific sum, thereby violating Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority issued a notice to the Respondent, who was found to have indulged in profiteering and violating the mentioned provision.

2. After thorough consideration and hearings, the Authority determined the profiteered amount and held the Respondent in violation of Section 171(1). It was noted that the Respondent had collected extra amounts from consumers and compelled them to pay more GST, thus committing an offense under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Respondent was issued a notice to explain why the penalty under Section 122(1) should not be imposed on him.

3. The Respondent argued against the imposition of penalty, stating that he had already accepted and paid the determined amount. He contended that penalty should only be imposed in cases of mens rea and deliberate violation of the law, emphasizing his compliance with the Authority's directives as evidence of his bona fide intentions. The Authority, after reviewing all submissions and evidence, found that the Respondent had indeed violated Section 171(1) by not passing on the GST rate reduction. However, it was observed that no penalty had been prescribed for this specific violation under Section 122(1)(i) of the Act.

4. The Authority highlighted that penalty provisions for violation of Section 171(1) were later added under Section 171(3A) of the Finance Act, 2019, effective from 01.01.2020. As the violation occurred before the introduction of these penalty provisions, the Authority concluded that the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated against the Respondent were dropped, and the notice for penalty imposition was withdrawn.

---