2020 (9) TMI 39 - NAPA - GST

Violation of CGST Act: Profiteering Case Withdrawn

The case involved a violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent, leading to profiteering and denial of input tax credit benefits ... Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit by way of commensurate reduction of price - contravention of provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to his buyers w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 18.12.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped. Issues: Violation of Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017; Imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) read with Rule 133(3)(d) of CGST Rules, 2017Violation of Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017:The case involved an investigation by the DGAP based on a complaint, revealing that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit to buyers for a flat purchased post-GST implementation. The DGAP found that the Respondent denied input tax credit benefits to buyers, amounting to a specific sum, from July 2017 to September 2018, violating Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the National Anti-Profiteering Authority issued a notice to the Respondent to show cause for the violation. After detailed hearings, the Authority determined the profiteered amount and held the Respondent in violation of Section 171(1) along with denying the benefit of ITC by not adjusting flat prices accordingly, leading to additional payments by buyers. The Respondent was found to have committed an offense under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, attracting penalty provisions.Imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) read with Rule 133(3)(d) of CGST Rules, 2017:Following the determination of profiteering and violation of Section 171(1), the Respondent was issued a notice to explain why penalty under Section 171(3A) read with Rule 133(3)(d) should not be imposed. The Respondent argued against the penalty invoking a notification by the Central Government, stating that the penalty provisions under Section 171(3A) were effective prospectively from January 1, 2020, and could not have retrospective application. The Authority, after careful consideration, noted that the penalty provisions were introduced post the period of violation (July 2017 to September 2018) and hence could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the penalty proceedings against the Respondent were withdrawn, and the notice for penalty imposition was dropped.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the violations of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent, leading to profiteering and denial of input tax credit benefits to buyers. It also clarified the inapplicability of penalty provisions retrospectively, based on the timing of the violation and subsequent regulatory changes, resulting in the withdrawal of penalty proceedings against the Respondent.