Supreme Court of India · GST · AKHB case note
Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 439/2024
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the official source PDF. ·
Final disposal of constitutional writ by application of Radhika Agarwal; interim order, if any, vacated.
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 primarily challenged the constitutional validity of section 69 of the CGST Act, which concerns GST arrest powers. The short signed order does not narrate the underlying allegations, amount, arrest circumstances or tax assessment.
Source: Official signed order, page 1, first unnumbered paragraph.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Court recorded that a three-Judge Bench had upheld the legal validity of the provision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors., (2025) 6 SCC 545. It applied that precedent to dispose of the present petition. The order does not undertake a fresh independent constitutional analysis or decide the lawfulness of a particular arrest on individual facts.
Source: Official signed order, page 1, second and third unnumbered paragraphs.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The writ petition was disposed of in terms of Radhika Agarwal. Any interim order stood vacated. The accompanying record of proceedings confirms disposal in terms of the signed order and disposes of pending applications, if any.
Source: Signed order, page 1; record of proceedings, page 2.
04 · In favour of
The constitutional challenge concluded without relief inconsistent with the cited precedent, and any interim protection in this writ ceased under the express direction. No finding of tax liability, criminal guilt, actual custody or validity of a particular arrest is recorded.
Source: Signed order, page 1; record of proceedings, page 2.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Read this as a final application of an existing constitutional precedent. Consult Radhika Agarwal for its reasoning and safeguards rather than treating this short disposal as blanket approval of every exercise of arrest power. The phrase “interim order, if any” does not itself prove that protection had been granted or establish present custody. Check the individual factual proceedings and later orders before advising. The signed order and its accompanying record form one decision, not two completed judgments.
Source: AKHB analysis based on complete official two-page source; 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 two-page signed order and confirming 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 source contains the signed final order on page1 and its confirming ROP on page2.
The source says disposed of, rather than dismissed; that formulation is retained.
Radhika Agarwal citation is reproduced from the signed order. No separate neutral citation is printed for this decision.
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.