Biryani Blind Spots: Inside Hyderabad’s Turnover Bombshell

India doesn’t need more raids — it needs real-time digital audit intelligence (with full access to CAG) embedded into its tax architecture

By P. SESH KUMAR

New Delhi, February 19, 2026 — A seemingly routine Income Tax investigation into Hyderabad’s bustling biryani joints has exploded into headlines claiming over ₹70,000 crore in concealed turnover —uncovered through artificial intelligence (AI), digital billing trails and forensic analytics. While the numbers are jaw-dropping and the technological prowess impressive, the episode raises deeper questions about systemic regulatory blind spots, long-standing enforcement complacency, data under-utilisation, and the dangers of trial-by-headline before affected businesses even speak.

Hyderabad’s biryani is legendary- aromatic, overflowing, and omnipresent. What no one imagined was that beneath the steam rising from aluminum handis lay a parallel financial universe allegedly worth tens of thousands of crores, hidden in plain sight.

According to recent Income Tax Department disclosures, a deep-dive using AI-powered software into digital billing systems across hundreds of popular food and beverage outlets revealed systematic suppression of sales, post-billing deletions, selective invoice generation and software-driven turnover trimming —culminating in a staggering claim of over ₹70,000 crore in unreported revenue over just a few years.

It sounds cinematic. Algorithms sniffing out fraud. Ghost entries vanishing at midnight. Crores quietly erased with a click.

But beyond the drama could lie a sobering governance story.

For decades, India’s restaurant sector- particularly cash-rich high-volume outlets- has thrived in the grey zone between digital formalisation and weak enforcement. Even after GST made billing compulsory and Point of Sale (POS) systems ubiquitous, oversight largely remained superficial. Returns were filed. Numbers looked reasonable. No red flags were pursued aggressively. The tax ecosystem trusted what was fed into it.

And therein lay the first failure.

Modern billing software is not merely a cash register- it is a programmable financial narrative machine. Many low-cost POS platforms openly offer features such as “training mode,” “invoice suppression,” “data reset,” or “post-day edits.” When combined with weak audits and limited cross-verification with raw digital data, these tools become silent tax-evasion factories.

For years, sales volumes visible to customers may have never matched profits visible to tax authorities — yet no one connected the dots.

The second failure could be institutional inertia.

The Income Tax Department and GST authorities possess oceans of transactional data -UPI flows, card payments, e-way bills, supplier purchases, electricity usage patterns, footfall clusters, and digital wallets. Yet these remained siloed. Risk analytics lagged. Field audits focused on routine compliance rather than forensic interrogation of digital back-ends. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) — which boasts of tremendous advances made in use of advanced data analytics and AI in its audits ( mostly pilots) — is not given access to this minefield of data in whatever restricted and anonymised form, the Income-tax department can.

In simple terms, the government was swimming in data but fishing with a twig and CAG has been kept away -at more than an arm’s length.

So how did this suddenly surface?

What changed was not the dishonesty of traders -it was the intelligence of enforcement. Advanced AI tools appear to have finally been unleashed to scrape POS logs, deleted transaction trails, invoice timestamps, and anomaly patterns across thousands of outlets simultaneously. Once raw machine data was examined — not just monthly summaries — the fraud allegedly lit up like a Christmas tree.

Which leads to an uncomfortable truth: This wasn’t a sudden scam. It was a long-running blind spot. Now comes the most important caution. We must not treat headline numbers as final convictions.

Tax investigations begin with suspicion estimates — not adjudicated guilt. Turnover “suppressed” through software analysis still needs explanation, reconciliation, legal vetting and the taxpayer’s defence. Some deletions may reflect cancelled orders, genuine errors, system migrations, or duplicate entries. Others may indeed be deliberate evasion.

But our tax departments have a dangerous habit of turning raids into verdicts.

Until assessments are completed, objections heard, and appellate scrutiny applied, ₹70,000 crore remains an allegation — not a judicially settled fact.

History teaches us this repeatedly: inflated early claims often shrink dramatically once due process runs its course. Which brings us to the deeper governance lesson.

If such manipulation was technologically possible for years, it means:

• Enforcement systems were designed for paper-era fraud in a digital economy
• Audits focused on declared returns instead of raw transactional data- CAG was kept away far too long from accessing the data.
• Inter-departmental data integration remained cosmetic
• Field intelligence lagged far behind private-sector analytics

In essence, can one not say that we digitised tax collection but we have quite some way to go in tax scrutiny.

The private fintech world has long used AI to detect fraud in milliseconds. The State took nearly a decade to apply similar logic to revenue protection.

So where did the real failure lie? Not with clever restaurant owners alone- but with slow institutional adaptation. A compliance framework that does not audit digital exhaust will always be gamed. A tax system that trusts summary reports while ignoring backend logs invites manipulation. A regulator that doesn’t stress-test billing software architectures leaves loopholes wide open. The biryani story is not about food joints. It is about a governance gap in India’s entire SME compliance ecosystem.

The way forward must be far bigger than one probe.

We urgently need continuous AI-based transaction audits – including independent CAG audits with required access- across GST, income tax, UPI platforms and POS providers. Billing software must be certified with tamper-proof audit trails, immutable logs and mandatory real-time tax reporting for high-volume sectors. Cross-linking electricity usage, procurement volumes, payment gateways and declared turnover should become routine risk analytics-not post-scam firefighting.

At the same time, enforcement must remain legally grounded. Sensationalism erodes trust. Transparency, due process and proportional penalties build compliance far better than headline terror.

The real victory here is not exposing one industry — it is modernising tax governance itself. If this episode becomes a catalyst for intelligent, continuous digital oversight, our revenue system will finally catch up with its digital economy.

If it remains a one-off raid spectacle, the next scam is already being coded somewhere.

Is This Problem Likely Limited to Hyderabad? Almost Certainly Not.

Today, we have one of the fastest-growing organised food service markets in the world. According to industry estimates, the Indian food services market crossed ₹4–5 lakh crore in size and is projected to grow at double-digit rates annually. Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs), cloud kitchens, franchise chains, fine-dining chains, and regional giants operate across metros and Tier-2 cities. Most depend on POS software ecosystems integrated with GST returns, payment gateways, food aggregators, and inventory systems.

If billing-software manipulation, post-invoice deletion, selective billing or cash skimming were technically feasible in Hyderabad, the technology itself is not geographically confined. Software architectures are often identical across states. Low-cost POS vendors operate nationally. Many outlets-especially mid-tier chains and franchisees run on similar backend configurations.

Therefore, the real question is not “Did it happen elsewhere?” but “Has similar risk been systematically audited elsewhere?”

The restaurant business is uniquely vulnerable to suppression risks because it is: High-volume; High-cash historically (even if digitisation has grown); Operationally fragmented; Inventory-heavy with wastage buffers

Difficult to benchmark profit margins precisely; and Unlike manufacturing, where raw material purchases often tightly correlate with output, food service has built-in elasticity-spoilage, complimentary servings, cancellations, wastage — which can be used as camouflage.

If AI-based backend log analysis is now being applied seriously, it is plausible that similar patterns may emerge in other states- not necessarily at the same scale, but structurally similar.

However, one must distinguish between systemic vulnerability and proven guilt. Not every chain manipulates data. Large national brands with audited ERP systems, centralized accounting, and listed status typically face stronger internal controls. The risk zone lies more in decentralized, franchise-heavy, mid-sized or locally dominant chains where oversight is uneven.

This episode may therefore signal the beginning of a broader compliance recalibration in the food sector.

Now, A Necessary Reality Check: Why “Scam Figures” Often Shrink in Appeals

Our enforcement history is littered with examples where initial headline numbers-dramatic, politically charged, raid-time estimates-shrink substantially after due process.

This is not accidental. It is structural.

During search and seizure operations, investigating agencies often compute “potential undisclosed income” using extrapolation methods. For example, if deletion patterns are found for a few months, projections may be extended across multiple years. Gross turnover suppression may be treated as taxable income before cost adjustments. Peak cash found may be assumed to represent cumulative concealment.

But assessments are only the first stage.

Under the Income Tax Act, additions made by Assessing Officers are routinely challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), then the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and often High Courts or the Supreme Court. At each stage, legal scrutiny tightens.

Historical data from CBDT’s own performance reports has repeatedly shown that a significant percentage of tax additions made at assessment stage are either reduced or deleted in appellate forums. In several years, appellate authorities have granted relief in a majority of disputed cases, sometimes deleting 40–60% or more of additions in value terms.

Even within routine income tax raids, it is common for disclosed “undisclosed income detected” at the time of search to reduce substantially once books are reconciled, cost adjustments allowed, telescoping applied, peak credit theory considered, and evidentiary burdens tested.

Budget 2026 Retrospective Tax: Is India Rewriting the Rules?

Why does this shrinkage occur?

Because: Extrapolation assumptions get challenged; Deleted entries may include genuine cancellations; Gross turnover is not equal to taxable income; Penalty requires proof of deliberate concealment; Burden of proof shifts legally; and Headline numbers reflect suspicion. Appellate orders reflect adjudication.

That does not mean wrongdoing did not occur. It means legal quantification is far more exacting than raid-room estimation.

What This May Mean for the Hyderabad Case

The ₹70,000 crore figure-if accurately reported-likely reflects cumulative suppressed turnover detected via analytics across multiple entities and years. But taxable income would be a fraction of turnover. And final legally sustained additions may be a fraction of initial detection.

We must, therefore, hold two thoughts simultaneously:

If systemic suppression occurred, it is serious and demands reform.

But until adjudication is complete, numbers remain provisional.

The Larger Lesson

The real issue is not whether this particular figure shrinks later. It is whether India’s tax architecture transitions from episodic raids to continuous digital audit intelligence.

If backend log tampering is possible, the answer is not more search operations. It is tamper-proof, real-time, certified billing systems integrated directly into GST and income tax analytics. The one agency- constitutionally empowered- is denied requisite access to both the databases of GST and Income Tax Department. CAG must immediately mark it a ‘high risk’ subject that should be subjected to a rigorous and integrated performance cum IT audit using advanced digital analytics and a suitably adapted AI audit strategy framework already devised.

And equally important-institutional humility in CBDT and CAG.

Enforcement (and CAG’s audit) credibility rises not from dramatic announcements, but from assessments that withstand appellate scrutiny and demonstrated value addition to Good Governance.

The biryani story may yet become either: A turning point in digital tax governance. Or another example of numbers that sizzle in headlines but simmer down in courtrooms.

Time — and due process — will tell.

Way Forward in One Line

India doesn’t need more raids — it needs real-time digital audit intelligence (with full access to CAG) embedded into its tax architecture.

(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are author’s own.)

New Income Tax Bill: IT Summons to Entail Access to ‘Phones’

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author