The Foodlink F & B Holdings (India) GST dispute has progressed after the Bombay High Court directed authorities to initiate a formal show-cause and adjudication process instead of quashing the tax intimation. The case involves a proposed GST demand of ₹135.91 crore under the CGST Act, with allegations of excess input tax credit and unpaid tax liabilities. The company, led by Sanjay Vazirani, had challenged procedural aspects, while the court emphasised due process through statutory adjudication mechanisms.
Foodlink GST case: Bombay High Court orders show-cause process in Rs 135.91 crore tax dispute
The Bombay High Court has directed GST authorities to proceed with a show-cause notice and adjudication in the Foodlink F & B Holdings (India) tax dispute instead of quashing the impugned intimation.
The Bombay High Court Foodlink GST case centres on Writ Petition (L) No. 5576 of 2026, filed by Foodlink F & B Holdings (India) against Union of India & Ors.
A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe heard the matter on March 4, 2026, and later disposed of the writ petition without costs.
The petition challenged an intimation dated February 17, 2026, issued under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 142(1A).
That intimation, issued in Form GST DRC-01A bearing DIN 20260267VW000000B79A, raised a proposed GST demand of Rs 1,35,91,41,680 for financial years 2021-22 to 2023-24.
To view the HC Writ Petition – Click here
To view other related HC documents – Click here
How the Foodlink GST dispute reached the Bombay High Court
According to the order, Foodlink F & B Holdings (India)- director: Sanjay Vazirani, incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, is engaged in catering services and restaurant operations across its business.
The dispute began on August 8, 2023, when the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (AE), CGST & CEX, Navi Mumbai, initiated an enquiry against the company.
The department alleged that the petitioner had availed of wrong or excess Input Tax Credit and had not paid Goods and Services Tax on inter-bank transfers.
On February 27, 2024, authorities provisionally attached the company’s bank accounts through eight orders issued in Form GST DRC-22, directing banks not to allow debit transactions.
Foodlink challenged those attachment orders in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024, also questioning Section 83 of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or, alternatively, seeking that it be read down.
During that earlier litigation, the department continued the provisional attachment by an order dated March 11, 2024, which Foodlink later sought to quash through an amended petition.
Also Read: Kashiff Khan Bail Rejected in FashionTV Gorakhpur Fraud Case.
Special audit, Sagar Shah reports and the Rs 10.28 crore issue
On March 14, 2024, the High Court directed Respondent No. 2 to appoint an independent Chartered Accountant under Section 66 of the CGST Act for verification.
In compliance, Sagar Shah was appointed on March 18, 2024. The order records that Foodlink participated in the investigation and submitted all relevant documents.
Sagar Shah submitted one report on March 24, 2024, later placed on record through an additional affidavit dated March 26, 2024, filed by the department.
Foodlink then filed a rejoinder on March 27, 2024, and another additional affidavit dated March 26, 2024, placing correspondence with the Chartered Accountant before the court.
By an order dated March 28, 2024, the court asked the Chartered Accountant to verify the credibility and authenticity of inter-bank transactions. A further report followed on April 26, 2024.
Foodlink ( director: Sanjay Vazirani) later moved Interim Application No. 1695 of 2026, seeking an additional report regarding entries worth Rs 10.28 crore that, according to the order, could not be triangulated initially.
Court’s reasoning, lawyers’ submissions and the next legal step
Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani appeared with Mihir Mehta and Vikas Poojary, instructed by PDS Legal, for the petitioner, while Karan Adik appeared with Megha Bajoria, Chirag Sawant and Sangeeta Yadav for the respondents.
The order also records that the court heard Prakash Shah for the petitioner and refers once to Megha Bujaria while recounting submissions for respondents.
Vikram Nankani argued that the impugned intimation was arbitrary, vague and cryptic, and failed to consider records, submissions and the April 26, 2024, verification report.
The bench, however, held that the writ petition was premature because no adjudication had yet taken place, and said factual disputes should be addressed through statutory proceedings.
Karan Adik stated for the department that a show-cause notice would be issued within two weeks, followed by adjudication. The court said Section 107 appellate remedies remained available thereafter.
For businesses tracking GST enforcement, the ruling underscores that courts may insist on adjudication before intervention. Sprouts News notes the decision leaves all rights and contentions expressly open.
The court directed a personal hearing within ten days of the show-cause notice and asked authorities to pass a reasoned, speaking order preferably within three months. For Sprouts News readers, that timeline now becomes the key development to watch.
Editorial Note:
This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.
