TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is also revealed that vide 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 vide Notification No. 01/2020-Central tax dated 01.01.2020 by inserting Section 171 (3A) in the CGST Act, 2017. Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 27.12.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) should not be fixed. After hearing both the parties at length this Authority vide its Order No. 60/2019 dated 21.11.2019 = 2019 (11) TMI 1085 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY had determined the profiteered amount as ₹ 1,42,06,267/- 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 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1). 3. It was also held that as the Respondent had profiteered an amount of ₹ 1,42,06,267/- by not reducing the prices of the flats between the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and therefore, he had apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that he has verified the claim of the Respondent that he had passed on the profiteered amount of ₹ 1,47,11,716/- along with interest of ₹ 17,26,796/- to the 820 buyers of the residential project and an amount of ₹ 16,45,268/- along with interest of ₹ 4,23,920/- to the 64 buyers of the commercial units of the project. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Respondent and all the material placed before us and it has been revealed that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the Applicant No. 1 as well as other home buyers who had purchased flats and commercial units in his Project Synera during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and hence, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
