Ankiti Bose: From Zilingo Unicorn Co-Founder to GST Fraud Accused — The Curious Case of Non-Appearance and Aggressive Defamation Suits

Ankiti Bose, once celebrated as one of India’s most prominent young female tech entrepreneurs and the co-founder of the near-unicorn fashion technology startup Zilingo, now finds herself at the center of a complex web of corporate collapse, criminal allegations, and selective litigation. Born in 1992 in Dehradun and educated in mathematics and economics at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai, Bose began her career at McKinsey & Company and later worked with Sequoia Capital in Bangalore. In 2015, she co-founded Zilingo in Singapore with Dhruv Kapoor. The company evolved from an online fashion marketplace into a B2B supply-chain technology platform, raising over $300 million from investors including Temasek, Sequoia Capital India (now Peak XV), Burda Principal Investments, and Sofina, and reaching a near-$1 billion valuation by 2019.

Bose’s rapid rise made her a symbol of Indian entrepreneurial success on the global stage. That narrative fractured in 2022. On 31 March 2022, she was suspended as CEO following whistleblower complaints of serious financial irregularities. Independent forensic investigations by firms including Kroll and Deloitte examined issues such as unexplained vendor payments, accounting discrepancies, governance failures, and alleged salary increases without board approval. On 20 May 2022, Zilingo terminated her employment “with cause,” citing insubordination and the investigation findings. Bose contested the process, stating she had not been shown the full reports and had been given insufficient opportunity to respond. Zilingo subsequently entered liquidation proceedings in early 2023.

After leaving Zilingo, Bose relocated and later emerged as Founding Partner at Terra-Invest, a London-based investment firm she co-founded with Krishan Rattan and Kirk Wagar. The firm focuses on AI, longevity, healthcare, biosciences, and related frontier sectors, with reported partnerships and capital commitments in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Bose has positioned Terra-Invest as a platform-building effort rather than a traditional venture vehicle.

The GST Fraud Case: Lavakesh Additional Assistant Director vs. Ankiti Bose

In late 2025, a criminal complaint was filed against Ankiti Bose, Zilingo Global Pvt. Ltd., and others by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The matter is pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade Court, Mumbai (specifically the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 19th Court).

Case details as recorded:

• Title: Lavakesh Additional Assistant Director vs. Ankiti Bose
• Court: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Mumbai, Maharashtra
• Case Type: Summons Case (SS Case)
• Registration No.: 155/2025
• Filing No.: 113646/2025
• CNR: MHMM110153622025
• Case Category: Offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (as amended)

The complaint invokes the following provisions of the CGST Act:

Section 132 – Punishment for certain offences This section criminalises specific GST-related misconduct. Relevant clauses include:

• 132(1)(b): Issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both, in violation of the Act or rules, leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit (ITC) or refund of tax.
• 132(1)(c): Avails input tax credit using such invoice or bill referred to in clause (b), or fraudulently avails input tax credit without any invoice or bill.
• 132(1)(f): Falsifies or substitutes financial records, or produces fake accounts or documents, or furnishes any false information with the intention to evade payment of tax due under the Act.
• 132(1)(i): Receives or is in any way concerned with the supply of, or in any other manner deals with, any supply of services which he knows or has reason to believe are in contravention of the Act or rules.
• 132(1)(l): Attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, any of the offences mentioned in the preceding clauses (particularly those relating to clauses (a) to (f), (h) and (i)).

The punishment structure under Section 132(1) is graduated by the quantum of tax involved:

• Where the amount of tax evaded, ITC wrongly availed/utilised, or refund wrongly taken exceeds ₹5 crore: imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
• Between ₹2 crore and ₹5 crore: imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
• For certain offences (including those under clause (b) in specified ranges): lower terms of imprisonment.
• For offences under clause (f) (and related abetment): imprisonment up to 6 months or fine or both (clause (iv) of the punishment provisions).

Certain offences under clauses (a)–(d) are cognisable and non-bailable depending on the amount involved.

Section 137 – Offences by companies This provision extends liability to companies and the individuals in charge. Where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business, as well as the company itself, is deemed guilty. Directors, managers, or other officers can also be held liable if the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or due to their negligence. A person may escape liability by proving the offence was committed without their knowledge and that they exercised due diligence.

The complaint alleges systematic tax offences involving the issuance of invoices without corresponding supply of goods or services, fraudulent availment of input tax credit, and related falsification or abetment—conduct typically associated with “fake invoice” or ITC fraud networks. The court took cognisance and issued summons. As of mid-2026, the matter remains at the pre-trial summons stage. Multiple adjournments have occurred (including dates in March and June 2026), attributed in court records to incomplete service of summons and absences of parties, including the accused. The next listed date has been reported around September 2026. No arrest, charge sheet framing, or trial has been publicly reported.

Non-Appearance Since 2025

Despite the filing of the complaint in 2025 and the issuance of summons, Ankiti Bose has not appeared in the proceedings. Court records reflect repeated adjournments linked to non-service or non-appearance of the accused. The case has lingered without progress toward framing of notice or evidence.

This prolonged non-appearance stands in sharp contrast to Bose’s vigorous engagement with the Indian judicial system in other capacities.

Aggressive Pursuit of Defamation Cases Against Media and Critics

Since her ouster from Zilingo, Bose has pursued multiple high-profile defamation actions:

• In 2023, she filed a $100 million defamation suit in the Bombay High Court against investor Mahesh Murthy over an article in Outlook Business that discussed issues surrounding startup founders and venture capital practices. The Bombay High Court granted interim relief restraining certain publications.
• She has obtained ex-parte interim injunctions from courts in Mumbai and Delhi against media outlets and individuals, directing the removal or restraint of articles critical of her conduct at Zilingo or subsequent developments. Recent orders in 2026 from Delhi’s Dwarka Court have directed compliance with injunctions and removal of content.
• These actions have been characterised by some observers as strategic litigation aimed at controlling the narrative around the Zilingo collapse and subsequent allegations.

Bose has also filed a criminal FIR in Mumbai in April 2024 against her former co-founder Dhruv Kapoor and former COO Aadi Vaidya, alleging cheating, criminal intimidation, fraud, and sexual harassment. That FIR, filed nearly two years after her suspension, remains at an early stage with no publicly reported charge sheet or arrests as of mid-2026. Critics have questioned the timing, while Bose has attributed delays in part to her relocation for work.

The Central Question

A striking disparity has emerged. Ankiti Bose has demonstrated both the willingness and the resources to aggressively pursue civil defamation remedies and criminal complaints against former colleagues and media organisations. Courts have granted her interim protections. Yet in the GST fraud summons case filed against her under serious provisions of the CGST Act—allegations involving fake invoicing, wrongful ITC claims, and company liability under Section 137—she has remained conspicuously absent from the Esplanade Court proceedings since the matter was registered in 2025.

Why has Bose not appeared in the GST case while actively litigating defamation actions against news media companies? The question is not merely procedural. Non-appearance in a summons case can delay the administration of justice, frustrate the investigation into alleged large-scale tax offences, and raise concerns about equal accountability under the law. At the same time, every accused person is entitled to due process, proper service of summons, and the right to contest charges. The repeated adjournments may stem from genuine difficulties in service, jurisdictional issues, or other legitimate reasons. However, the pattern of selective engagement—highly proactive as a plaintiff seeking to restrain critical reporting, passive as a defendant in a criminal tax case—invites public scrutiny.

As of July 2026, the GST matter remains pending at the summons stage. The outcome will depend on whether service is completed, whether Bose appears or seeks appropriate legal remedies (such as anticipatory bail or discharge applications), and how the prosecution presents its evidence. Parallel civil and criminal proceedings arising from the Zilingo episode continue to unfold in different forums.

Ankiti Bose’s journey—from McKinsey consultant and unicorn co-founder to founding partner of a frontier investment firm, while simultaneously navigating termination for alleged financial irregularities, a delayed sexual-harassment FIR, multimillion-dollar defamation suits, and now a GST fraud prosecution—illustrates the high-stakes intersection of startup ambition, corporate governance failures, tax enforcement, and reputation management in modern India. The unanswered question of her non-appearance in the Esplanade Court case remains one of the more pointed unresolved issues in that continuing story.