2020 (9) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....29 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 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 rate reduction when the rate of GST was reduced from 18% to 5% in the foot wear (Shoes). 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 rate reduction to his customers amounting to Rs. 6,55,307/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. 2. This Authority after careful consideration of the R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 deposited the entire profiteered amount which had been determined by this Authority in the Consumer Welfare Funds (CWFs) within 1 month from the date of the order issued by this Authority. Further, the Respondent vide his e-mails dated 27.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 has submitted copies of two Demand Drafts in support of the deposition of the interest on the profiteered amount in the CWFs and the acknowledgement of the said Demand Drafts respectively. The DGAP has verified the above claim of the Respondent and vide his submissions dated 13.03.2020 has enc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amount in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and the State Governments along with interest. 8. 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 provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act, therefore, the Respondent was issued show cause notice to state why penalty should not be imposed on him for violation of the above provisions as per Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act as he had apparently issued incorrect or false invoices while charging excess consideration and GST from the buyers. However, from the perusal of Section 122 (1) (i) it is clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) is not covered under it as it does ....