Supreme Court of India · GST · AKHB case note
M/s Kamal Ideal Infratech Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 28802/2026
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the official source PDF. ·
Reasoned final dismissal of special leave petition concerning belated writ challenge and unavailed statutory appeal.
Respondents, to the qualified extent of final disposal against the petitioner; no general tax-liability finding.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The petitioner challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 28 January 2026 in CWP 35491/2025. Counsel argued that necessary facts for section 74 were absent, there was no wilful suppression, and ITC claimed for October 2017 had voluntarily been reversed in November 2017. Counsel relied on pending SLP(C)33594/2025. These were submissions. The Court considered the show-cause notice dated 8 September 2023 and assessment order dated 7 November 2023.
Source: Official PDF, caption and paras 2–3, pages 1–2.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Court found the factual matrix underlying the notice elaborately discussed in the impugned order. A section 107 appeal had been available. It found no convincing explanation for disregarding electronic communication and recorded the petitioner’s admitted awareness in 2024 followed by a belated 2025 writ. It agreed that the writ could not serve, in these circumstances, as a substitute for the unused and time-barred appellate remedy. It distinguished SLP(C)33594/2025, which concerned an allegation that primary facts disclosing suppression were absent from the notice.
Source: Official PDF, para 3, page 2.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
Delay in filing before the Supreme Court was condoned. The Court declined to entertain and dismissed the SLP for the stated reasons; accompanying applications were disposed of. No appellate limitation extension, fresh appeal opportunity or recovery stay was granted.
Source: Official PDF, paras 1,3–4, pages 1–3.
04 · In favour of
The petitioner failed to obtain Supreme Court interference with the High Court’s refusal to entertain its belated writ. The decision contains case-specific reasoning on the available statutory remedy, communication and delay. It does not independently quantify tax liability or establish fraud merely from the petitioner’s unsuccessful challenge.
Source: Official PDF, paras 2–4, pages 1–3.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Preserve the notice, assessment order, portal-service records and actual-knowledge chronology, and act within the applicable appeal period. A submission of ignorance of an uploaded order needs a supported explanation; this case also involved admitted earlier awareness. Do not enlarge this reasoning into a rule that every portal upload conclusively proves valid service or that writ jurisdiction is unavailable in every time-barred appeal case. Keep counsel’s claimed ITC reversal separate from the Court’s findings. The factual distinction of SLP 33594/2025 is not a decision of that separate proceeding. Supreme Court filing-delay condonation does not revive the expired statutory appeal.
Source: AKHB analysis based on paras 1–4; no additional judicial holding.
Source and verification
Official Supreme Court complete order and record of proceedings. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete official three-page reasoned ROP read and visually checked on 19 October 2026. Identity, operative wording and scope checked; no missing separate judgment required.
Source checked 2026-10-19. Paragraph references follow the identified official judgment; PDF-page references follow that source file. The court’s printed paragraph numbers may differ from commercial reporting.
The original prints Diary 28802/2026. The DLA monthly report separately identifies SLP 21957/2026; registry linkage has not been independently confirmed, so diary identity is retained.
No grant of special leave or conversion into civil appeal is recorded.
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the original.
Statutory scope
Statutory references are confined to provisions expressly identified in the order. No current-law consolidation or comprehensive amendment audit is claimed.
Later treatment and present applicability
Bounded exact-party and docket public searches on 19 October 2026 did not identify a later modifying order. This does not certify absence of later proceedings or comprehensive current treatment.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
AI-assisted research checked against the identified primary source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on the facts, tax period, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless the note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.