Supreme Court of India · GST · AKHB case note
Ajaybhai Natwarbhai Odd v. The Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) & Ors.; connected petitions
SLP (Civil) Diary Nos. 47274/2026, 44188/2026 and 47261/2026
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the official source PDF. ·
Final dismissal of three special leave petitions with preserved GSTAT grounds and a case-specific limitation-application direction.
Qualified outcome: SLPs dismissed; petitioners retain GSTAT grounds and a direction for sympathetic consideration of their limitation application.
01 · Facts of the case and issues
The lead special leave petition arose from the Gujarat High Court order dated 13 February 2026 in SCA No. 1380/2026. Two connected SLP diaries were heard with it. The Supreme Court heard the petitioners’ senior counsel and recorded that the High Court had granted liberty to raise grounds before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The short order does not specify the underlying tax demand, tax period or disputed GST provisions.
Source: Official Supreme Court PDF, caption and paras 1–3, pp. 1–2.
02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court
The Supreme Court found no ground to entertain the SLPs. Nevertheless, it reiterated liberty to raise all grounds before GSTAT, including those urged in the SLPs. It allowed the petitioners to file an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and directed GSTAT to consider that application sympathetically in view of their pursuit of the cause before a wrong forum. These are directions governing the petitioners’ procedural recourse; the underlying GST liability was not adjudicated.
Source: Official Supreme Court PDF, paras 2–3, pp. 1–2.
03 · Judicial decision and operative relief
The Court condoned delay in the Supreme Court proceedings and dismissed the three SLPs. It preserved all grounds before GSTAT and permitted the specified limitation application, subject to GSTAT’s consideration as directed. Pending applications were disposed of. The order does not itself condone delay before GSTAT, exclude a quantified period, fix a fresh filing deadline, grant a recovery stay or waive pre-deposit.
Source: Official Supreme Court PDF, paras 1–4, pp. 1–2.
04 · In favour of
The Supreme Court proceedings ended without interference with the challenged order. The petitioners received express procedural protection for pursuing the GSTAT remedy and seeking limitation relief. Any substantive appellate result and the actual disposal of their limitation application remain outside this source. One common order covers all three diaries and should be counted as one canonical judgment entry.
Source: Official Supreme Court PDF, caption and paras 2–4, pp. 1–2.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Keep the condonation in paragraph 1 separate from the future GSTAT application in paragraph 3. A practitioner relying on this case should document the chronology, forum pursued and relevant orders, preserve each appellate ground, and expressly seek the appropriate limitation relief. The direction for sympathetic consideration is not an automatic allowance of the application. Do not treat this short order as a general ruling that sections 5 and 14 displace every GST statutory time limit, or as an affirmation of the tax demand on merits. Verify subsequent orders and implementation before acting.
Source: AKHB analysis based on official PDF paras 1–4; no additional judicial holding.
Source and verification
Official Supreme Court two-page record of proceedings containing the complete reasoned disposal order. · Individual hosted copy of the original judgment
Complete two-page official record of proceedings read and visually checked. This source itself contains the operative reasons and disposal; it does not refer disposal to an unavailable separate signed judgment.
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.
No grant of special leave or conversion into civil appeals is recorded.
The Court dismisses the SLPs; it does not describe the Supreme Court disposal as withdrawal.
Paragraph 1 condones delay in the Supreme Court proceedings, while paragraph 3 contemplates a separate application to GSTAT.
Connected diaries 44188/2026 and 47261/2026 appear in the common original and are not separate completed judgment entries.
No neutral or reported citation is printed in the official original.
Statutory scope
Sections 5 and 14 are recorded as cited by the Court. No general conclusion about their application to every GSTAT limitation dispute or current-law consolidation is claimed.
Later treatment and present applicability
Bounded public exact-party and docket searches on 19 October 2026 did not identify a later modifying order. Search results are not a complete docket or citator check; implementation and subsequent proceedings have not been comprehensively verified.
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.