https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400154 The appeal challenged the additional demand created under Rule 138 of HPGST & CGST Rules, 2017, due to a procedural lapse and vehicle number discrepancy in the E-way Bill. The court found no fraudulent intent or gross negligence, concluding that the penalty imposed was unsustainable. The appellant was only liable for a minor penalty under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST/HPGST Act for not updating the E-way Bill promptly. The appeal was accepted, the original order set aside, and the appellant refunded the tax and penalty, with a minor penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400154 The appeal challenged the additional demand created under Rule 138 of HPGST & CGST Rules, 2017, due to a procedural lapse and vehicle number discrepancy in the E-way Bill. The court found no fraudulent intent or gross negligence, concluding that the penalty imposed was unsustainable. The appellant was only liable for a minor penalty under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST/HPGST Act for not updating the E-way Bill promptly. The appeal was accepted, the original order set aside, and the appellant refunded the tax and penalty, with a minor penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400154