The Kashiff Khan case has intensified after a CGST order flagged ₹16.94 crore in alleged tax irregularities linked to Fashiontv India Pvt Ltd. Findings name Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, Rukmani Singh, and Ashiq Abbas Jivani, citing misrepresentation, suppressed turnover, and statutory violations. Authorities imposed penalties under the CGST Act, while noting the findings are subject to appeal. The case raises broader concerns around corporate governance, franchise operations, and tax compliance in India’s business ecosystem.

Kashiff Khan case Latest Update: CGST order details ₹16.94 crore fraud findings against Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd.

A quasi-judicial CGST order from Mumbai East has recorded fraud findings against Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd., Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, Rukmani Singh and Ashiq Abbas Jivani.

The order, cited by the Multi-State Victim Forum, highlights alleged false corporate representation, suppressed turnover, tax evasion and overseas fund movements, raising broader regulatory concerns.

The Kashiff Khan case has drawn renewed scrutiny after Order-in-Original No. ME/ADC/KK/255/GST/2025-26, dated March 26, 2026, detailed findings against Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd. and associated individuals.

The order was issued by Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate, covering financial years from 2019-20 to 2023-24 under relevant statutory provisions.

At the centre of the proceedings is Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, described as a self-styled “Managing Director” of Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd., a claim that has become central to the case.

To view all the latest FIR – Click here

Corporate status claims and legal directorship issues

That claim is significant because the order records that Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on December 31, 2019, with Khatija Sultana Khan and Nayyar Khan as initial directors.

The order identifies them as Kashiff Khan’s wife and mother, while co-director Rukmani Singh confirmed in her statement that ownership has remained within the same family structure.

Under the Companies Act, 2013, a Managing Director must be appointed from among existing directors, making any representation outside this framework legally questionable and subject to scrutiny.

The forum asserts that Kashiff Khan never held formal directorship in the company, raising questions over the validity of agreements executed under the title of Managing Director.

GST demand, penalties and control findings

The Additional Commissioner recorded Kashiff Khan as the “sole controlling person” of the company and imposed personal liability of ₹16,38,36,799 under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act.

A total GST demand of ₹16,94,43,240 was confirmed under Section 74, which applies to cases involving alleged fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of taxable information.

Personal penalties of ₹16,38,36,799 each were also imposed on Kashiff Khan and Rukmani Singh, with findings indicating both had retained benefits arising from alleged tax evasion.

Sprouts News notes that these findings are based on a quasi-judicial order and remain subject to appeal or further legal challenge before competent authorities.

Also Read: E-Biotorium Sagar Ramakant Joshi Faces Multiple Allegations.

Related News: Kashiff Khan Bail Rejected in FashionTV Gorakhpur Fraud Case.

Role of Ashiq Abbas Jivani and investigation timeline

The order identifies Ashiq Abbas Shabbir Ali Jivani as actively involved in company operations and alleges that he knowingly aided statutory violations, including false returns and suppression of transactions.

According to the findings, Jivani interacted with GST officials during an inspection on September 6, 2024, and outlined the company’s franchise operations across multiple business categories.

The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Section 122(3)(a), noting that his actions reflected a conscious disregard of statutory obligations and failure to exercise due diligence in operational oversight.

The order also records that Jivani stopped reporting to the office from September 19, 2024, and has not been seen since, based on statements submitted by co-director Rukmani Singh.

Overseas fund trail and pre-incorporation activity

The order documents that USD 15,31,340, approximately ₹13 crore, was routed abroad between FY 2018-19 and FY 2023-24 through a combination of cash transfers and banking channels.

Destinations listed include Bangkok, Dubai, Vienna, Bucharest, Istanbul, Tel Aviv, Monte Carlo and Venice, raising questions about compliance with cross-border financial regulations and disclosures.

The forum claims these transfers were directed to Fashiontv Ltd. BVI, described as a fabricated entity linked to Adam Lisowski, rather than the legitimate entity recognised under prior agreements.

The order also records that business operations linked to brand licensing were conducted before the company’s formal incorporation, extending scrutiny to pre-incorporation activities attributed to Kashiff Khan.

Suppressed turnover and ‘Ponzi-like’ allegations

The findings confirm suppressed B2C turnover of ₹11.98 crore for FY 2023-24, reportedly supported by a written admission from the company’s Senior Accountant during inspection proceedings.

The order also reproduces a statement attributed to Adam Lisowski alleging a “Ponzi-like pyramid scheme” involving the appointment of city-level operators paying fees for non-existent licences.

Such claims, while recorded in the order, may require further independent verification and could be subject to judicial examination in subsequent legal proceedings or appeals.

Implications and what lies ahead

The Multi-State Victim Forum has urged individuals across India to come forward, stating that the findings represent official conclusions recorded by a quasi-judicial authority of the Government of India.

The case raises broader questions around corporate governance, franchise regulation, tax enforcement and cross-border financial flows within emerging business models involving brand licensing and investment schemes.

As the matter progresses, outcomes will depend on appellate review, potential parallel investigations and actions by enforcement agencies, which may determine the legal and regulatory consequences ahead.

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.