Ravi Charaya Vs Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd

Date: December 9, 2020

Court: National Anti-Profiteering Authority

Bench:

Type: Anti-Profiteering

Subject Matter

Hardcastle restaurant found guilty of profiteering

Summary

The Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to the buyers of his products in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 and therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. However, perusal of the provisions of Section 171 (3A) under which penalty has been prescribed for the above violation shows that it has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 when the Respondent had committed the above violation and hence, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the  Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, notice for imposition of penalty is not required to be issued to the Respondents.