9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Applicants. 2. Sh. Rohit Mansukhani, Head Finance and Sh. Archit Agarwal, CA, for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 03.04.2019, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the concerned parties at length this Authority vide its Order No. 53/2019 dated 05.11.2019 = 2019 (11) TMI 466 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 1,27,84,694 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty mentioned in Section 171 (3A) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) should not be imposed on him. 5. The Respondent vide his submissions dated 09.01.2020 has stated that the penal provisions under Section 171 (3A) 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 the Central Government vide Notification No. 01/2020- C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2017. 7. It is also revealed from the perusal of the CGST Act and the Rules framed under it that the Central Government vide Notification No. 01/2020- Central Tax dated 01.01.2020 has implemented the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 from 01.01.2020 vide which sub-section 171 (3A) was added in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and penalty was proposed to be imposed in the case of viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
