2020 (8) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER Present 1. None for the Applicants 2. Ms. Monika Goel, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (herein-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 18.06.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2018 to the Respondent to show cause why the Report furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) should not be fixed. After hearing both the parties at length this Authority vide its Order No. 17/2018 dated 07.12.2018 = 2018 (12) TMI 473 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 15,958/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2019 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 122(1) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be imposed on him. 5. The Respondent vide his submissions dated 09.01.2019 has stated that the penal provisions under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be invoked and penalty should not be imposed on him as he had accepted and paid the amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re us and it has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% on the above products w.e.f 15.11.2017 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 7. It is also revealed from the perusal of the CGST Act and the Rules framed under it that no penalty had been prescribed for violation of the....