2020 (9) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of the Villa No. B-02 purchased by him in the Respondent's project "City Park Township", Lodhipur, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh-242001 on introduction of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Vide his above Report the DGAP had also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the above Applicant and other buyers amounting to Rs. 81,67,546/- pertaining to the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....019 has interaliia submitted 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 penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act was not applicable in the present case. Further, he has also stated that he has accepted and paid the profiteered amount along with applicable interest which has been determined by this Authority. He has also submitted proof of payment of the profiteered amount to the Applicant No. 1 and DGAP as directed by the Authority vide Order No. 39/2019. He ha inter- alia also made a number of other submissions for non-imposition of penalty. The main submission he has made is that penalty should not be imposed o....