Case Law Details
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Raj & Company (NAA)
Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171 (3A).
Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 02.01.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
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 customers by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the product “Gamier Nat Shade 3” 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 the customers amounting to Rs. 3,43,109/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
