A complaint has been filed seeking an investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), alleging that SUIIDHAAGA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED, SUIIDHAAGA MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, and their director, Siba Shankar Dash along with his Daughter Swetapadma Dash were involved in operating shell entities, diverting investor funds, evading GST liabilities, and undertaking a fraudulent restructuring of business operations.

The following persons are involved in this large network of fraud:

Persons Visible in Publicly Available Images

According to the complaint, circumstances have emerged warranting a detailed probe by GST and enforcement authorities into the activities of the two companies. It has been alleged that the GST registration of SUIIDHAAGA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED (GSTIN: 21ABHCS0090H1ZN) was cancelled suo motu with effect from July 15, 2025, while SUIIDHAAGA MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED (GSTIN: 21ABSCS6318K1ZY) obtained an active GST registration from February 3, 2026.

The complainant contends that the timing and sequence of these developments raise serious concerns that business operations, customer relationships, receivables, financial transactions, and commercial activities may have been shifted from the earlier entity to the newer company in an attempt to avoid statutory liabilities, tax obligations, and commitments owed to franchisees, investors, and creditors. The complaint further alleges that both entities have operated under substantially similar trade names, websites, branding, and business structures, suggesting continuity of operations despite the cancellation of the GST registration of the earlier company. On this basis, it has been alleged that the newer entity may have been used as a shell or substitute vehicle to continue the same business under a different corporate structure.

The complaint has been filed by Mazahir Hussain Baroda Wala, who claims that he entered into a Franchise/Carrying & Forwarding Agreement with SUIIDHAAGA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED on February 2, 2024, after being assured that the company was engaged in legitimate business activities. Under the agreement, he allegedly invested ₹1 crore in a scheme that promised fixed lifetime returns of ₹2 lakh per month.

It is alleged that while the company initially made payments totaling approximately ₹21.60 lakh, it subsequently stopped making payments after December 27, 2024, and failed to honour its continuing obligations under the arrangement. The complainant further states that two cheques of ₹25 lakh each were issued towards repayment of outstanding liabilities. However, one of the cheques was allegedly dishonoured, as reflected in a communication issued by ICICI Bank dated May 1, 2026.

According to the complaint, the dishonour of the cheque, the alleged refusal to accept legal notices, and the cessation of payments collectively indicate that the complainant may have been induced to invest through false representations and that the commitments made at the inception of the arrangement were never intended to be fulfilled.

The complaint also points to what it describes as inconsistencies in the declared nature of business activities. While GST records reportedly reflect activities relating to garments, cosmetics, and hygiene products, it is alleged that associated persons were simultaneously promoting and marketing real estate projects and plots through various advertisements and promotional campaigns. The complainant contends that such divergence may indicate concealment of actual business operations, suppression of turnover, and diversion of funds into activities not disclosed to regulatory authorities.

Further allegations include the use of interconnected entities for migration of business operations, concealment of taxable transactions, dishonest inducement of investors and franchisees, non-deposit of TDS after June 2024, and possible siphoning or layering of investor funds. The complaint invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Companies Act, 2013, contending that the alleged acts may constitute scheduled offences capable of attracting the provisions of the PMLA.

Seeking intervention from the Enforcement Directorate, the complainant has requested a comprehensive investigation into the financial affairs of the entities, including scrutiny of bank accounts, related-party transactions, movement and layering of funds, and the possible attachment of assets under the PMLA. The complaint further seeks coordination between the Enforcement Directorate, GST authorities, the Income Tax Department, and the Registrar of Companies for examination of financial records, corporate filings, and other relevant documents.

The allegations contained in the complaint are presently claims made by the complainant and are subject to verification and investigation by the competent authorities.

Read More: Non-Maintenance of Job Work Records Can Trigger GST Demand U/s 74: Madras High Court