TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Applicant. 2. None for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP vide his Report dated 08.08.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies this Authority vide its Order No. 25/2018 dated 27.12.2018 = 2019 (1) TMI 22 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 3,43,109/- as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 pertaining to the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t till date. Further, the DGAP vide his submissions dated 05.03.2019 has stated that the Respondent has deposited Rs. 3,43,109/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. We have carefully considered all the material placed before us and it has been revealed that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the customers by way of commensurate reduction in the pric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefit of rate reduction and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act. 8. It is further revealed that vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171....