https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397677 The authority found that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to buyers during the relevant period, thereby breaching the anti-profiteering mandate. However, it held that no penalty was prescribed under the CGST Act and Rules for that violation at the relevant time, and Section 122(1)(i) did not apply because it did not cover failure to pass on tax reduction or input tax credit benefits. The later insertion of Section 171(3A) by the Finance Act, 2019 was held to be prospective only, so it could not be used for an earlier period. Penalty was therefore not imposable, the notice was withdrawn, and the proceedings were dropped. en-us Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397677 The authority found that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to buyers during the relevant period, thereby breaching the anti-profiteering mandate. However, it held that no penalty was prescribed under the CGST Act and Rules for that violation at the relevant time, and Section 122(1)(i) did not apply because it did not cover failure to pass on tax reduction or input tax credit benefits. The later insertion of Section 171(3A) by the Finance Act, 2019 was held to be prospective only, so it could not be used for an earlier period. Penalty was therefore not imposable, the notice was withdrawn, and the proceedings were dropped. Case-Laws GST Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397677