Rajesh Mehta Denies Revenue Inflation Charges in Rajesh Exports SEBI Case

Rajesh Mehta, founder and chairman of Rajesh Exports Limited (REL), has denied the revenue inflation charges made against the company by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and said the company would place its records before the regulator afresh. The charges arise from the SEBI interim order dated 3 June 2026 in the matter of Rajesh Exports Limited (reference WTM/KV/CFID/CFID-SEC6/32431/2026-27), in which REL and Rajesh Mehta are the two noticees.

What SEBI found in the interim order

SEBI's prima facie findings cover five financial years, FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25. According to the order, REL disclosed consolidated revenue of Rs 15,44,899 crore over this period, of which Rs 15,15,385 crore is alleged to be inflated. Most of the consolidated revenue was attributed to overseas subsidiaries, and the order notes that the standalone revenue of Switzerland-based Valcambi SA was less than 0.50% of the consolidated revenue reported by its holding company and by REL.

The order also questions REL's standalone accounts:

• Transactions with Affluence between FY 2021-22 and FY 2023-24: sales of Rs 11,486.60 crore (66.02% of standalone sales) and purchases of Rs 11,488.42 crore (67.11% of standalone purchases) are treated as fictitious.
• FY 2020-21 to FY 2023-24: exchange fluctuation of Rs 866.60 crore included in revenue, exchange fluctuation of Rs 716.18 crore included in purchases, and interest income of Rs 204.00 crore shown as operating revenue.
• As at 31 March 2025: intra-group investments of Rs 2,501.12 crore not eliminated on consolidation, and intra-group trade payables of Rs 1,456.77 crore to Valcambi SA.

SEBI records that the forensic auditor appointed on 3 December 2024, BDO India Services Pvt Ltd, reported data pendency, with only 2.03% of sampled transactions fully documented, and that REL did not provide access to its ERP system and complete journal entries despite summonses issued on 16 June 2025, 2 July 2025 and 24 July 2025. The order cites Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations, several provisions of the LODR Regulations, including Regulations 33 and 46(2)(s), and Sections 11, 11B, 11C(3) and 12A of the SEBI Act, 1992. The order page on the SEBI website lists it under enforcement orders for June 2026.

Mehta's response and the 400 GB of records

Speaking on 7 June 2026, Mehta told Business Today that the company had already shared between 300 GB and 400 GB of records with SEBI and that the regulator had not been able to find the correct documents. He said REL would resubmit all the requested documents within 15 days. He denied that any money had been routed through group entities or taken by the promoter, and said SEBI had treated EBITDA as revenue when arriving at the Rs 15.15 lakh crore figure. He also said he had never traded in securities.

These are the promoter's statements. They are not findings by SEBI, and the interim order's observations are prima facie. Liability will be decided only after SEBI examines the replies and records.

Later development: no appeal, fresh forensic audit

On 10 June 2026, Mehta said REL would fully cooperate with the fresh forensic audit ordered by SEBI and would not challenge the interim order, Business Standard reported. According to that report, the order requires REL to submit the requisite documents and explanations within 30 days and to ensure true and fair disclosures in its financial statements and related-party filings, and the trading restriction applies to Mehta rather than to the company.

What it means for auditors and finance teams

The order turns largely on records: whether consolidated revenue can be traced to subsidiary accounts, and whether standalone sales and purchases are backed by transaction-level evidence. For statutory auditors, audit committees and CFOs of listed companies, the case shows the questions SEBI now asks in a forensic review: ERP access, journal-level data, elimination of intra-group balances on consolidation, and the classification of exchange differences and interest income. Companies should be able to produce indexed, reconciled records that link ledger entries to invoices, contracts and bank trails, because volume of data alone does not answer a specific allegation.

Updated on 27 September 2026: added the findings, figures and reference number of SEBI's 3 June 2026 interim order with a link to the order, Mehta's statements with dates, and the 10 June 2026 decision not to challenge the order.