https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397828 The Anti-Profiteering Authority found the Respondent guilty of not passing on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to buyers, violating Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority determined the profiteered amount and confirmed the violation. Despite considerations for imposing penalties under various sections, including Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019, the Authority concluded that retrospective penalties could not be imposed due to the absence of penalty provisions during the relevant period. Consequently, penalty proceedings against the Respondent were withdrawn. en-us Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397828 The Anti-Profiteering Authority found the Respondent guilty of not passing on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to buyers, violating Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Authority determined the profiteered amount and confirmed the violation. Despite considerations for imposing penalties under various sections, including Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019, the Authority concluded that retrospective penalties could not be imposed due to the absence of penalty provisions during the relevant period. Consequently, penalty proceedings against the Respondent were withdrawn. Case-Laws GST Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397828