SME IPO cancelled after questions over its main software vendor
Trafiksol ITS Technologies Ltd · Intelligent traffic systems / smart city (BSE SME IPO)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Counterparty existence
Would have shown the vendor had no office, staff or filing history to match a ₹17.7 crore contract.
Can mislead when: Real companies can be used as pass-throughs. Existence does not prove a real trade, so C6 and C7 still apply.
Counterparty tax / GST
Would have checked the vendor's GST registration and filing record.
Can mislead when: Needs taxpayer consent or GSP access. A registered, filing shell still passes this check, which is why C3 and C4 run beside it.
Document authenticity / direct pull
Would have pulled the vendor's financials from MCA21 instead of accepting supplied copies.
Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.
Ownership / related-party links
Would have checked the vendor's directors and addresses against the promoter group.
Can mislead when: Nominee directors and offshore layers hide links. Name matching throws up false positives, so every flag shows its evidence path.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C2 Would have checked the vendor's GST registration and filing record.
- C3 Would have checked the vendor's directors and addresses against the promoter group.
- C4 Would have shown the vendor had no office, staff or filing history to match a ₹17.7 crore contract.
- C5 Would have pulled the vendor's financials from MCA21 instead of accepting supplied copies.
Proceeds tracer
Offered in India- C2 Would have checked the vendor's GST registration and filing record.
- C3 Would have checked the vendor's directors and addresses against the promoter group.
- C4 Would have shown the vendor had no office, staff or filing history to match a ₹17.7 crore contract.
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C3 Would have checked the vendor's directors and addresses against the promoter group.
- C4 Would have shown the vendor had no office, staff or filing history to match a ₹17.7 crore contract.
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C2 Would have checked the vendor's GST registration and filing record.
- C3 Would have checked the vendor's directors and addresses against the promoter group.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.