Lawyers’ Consent, Presence Must For GST Department To Access Computer Device: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the GST Department must not open or access the computer of an advocate without his presence and consent, since doing so would risk a serious breach of confidentiality and attorney–client privilege.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain said that any such search may take place only in exceptional circumstances and strictly in the presence of the lawyer.

“GST officials ought not to be permitted to open the CPU or computer of any advocate without his presence and consent, inasmuch as the same could lead to serious breach of confidentiality and attorney–client privilege. The GST Department is cautioned that, unless there are exceptional circumstances and subject to further orders that may be passed by the Court, if any advocate’s office is to be searched or computer is to be opened, the same ought to take place in the presence of the advocate and not otherwise,” the Court said.

Court made these observations while dealing with the petition of advocate Puneet Batra, who challenged a search and seizure operation carried out at his office by the Anti-Evasion Branch of CGST Delhi East on 25 July 2025. He sought quashing of the search, return of his seized CPU and documents, and exemption from further summons in connection with a client’s GST evasion case.

Batra, a practising advocate and member of multiple bar associations, had been providing legal and professional services since 2023 to M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., a gaming company. The GST Department had earlier searched the client’s premises on 4 and 5 September 2024, after which Batra formally withdrew his representation. He nevertheless received repeated summons and eventually appeared before officials on 27 June 2025. On 25 July, officials searched his office and seized a partnership deed and a CPU allegedly containing confidential data relating to multiple clients.

The GST Department, however, alleged that Batra was not merely acting as an advocate for Martkarma but was actively involved in running its business and affairs. On 1 September 2025, counsel for the department handed over a short note to the court outlining the petitioner’s alleged role in the client’s business. Various statements recorded during the investigation were also filed and kept in a sealed cover.

Contesting this, Batra maintained that he was only the lawyer for the client. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India, which held that sealed cover practice was contrary to law. Senior counsel for Batra argued that the petitioner must be made aware of all the material relied upon by the GST Department in order to effectively rebut it.

At this stage, the High Court refrained from making any observations on the petitioner’s role or whether he was involved in running the client’s business. It clarified that it was not going into the merits of the case and was only inclined to permit the CPU to be analysed by the GST Department, subject to safeguards. The court stressed that these precautions were necessary to ensure the department did not gain access to data related to any third-party clients of the petitioner.

The Bench directed that the examination would take place in the presence of the petitioner, along with either two lawyers or one lawyer and a forensic expert on his behalf. Two senior officials from the High Court’s IT Department and a forensic expert representing the GST Department would also be present.

The CPU is to be connected to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, after which officials may determine three aspects: the last date on which data was accessed, the nature of files opened on 25 July 2025 when officials inspected the CPU, and whether any files were deleted, copied, or removed, along with corresponding details of date and time.

The entire hard drive will be cloned, with one copy given to the petitioner. With his assistance, all files relating to M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. and connected individuals or entities will be identified, copied to a hard disk, and handed over to the GST Department for further investigation.

It directed the GST Department to file a redacted affidavit after the inspection, setting out whether any allegations arise from the data and the steps it intends to take against the petitioner.

The Court made it clear that once this procedure is completed, the CPU shall be sealed and kept in the custody of the GST Department, which cannot access or open it without further orders. It also directed that, in the meantime, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.

For Petitioner:Mr. N Hariharan, Mr. Sachin Puri, Mr. Kirti Uppal, Mr. Avi Singh, Mr. Neeraj Malhotra & Mr. Amit Chaddha, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Aman Sareen, Mr. Animesh Gaba, Mr. B C Pandey, Mr. Rajiv Taneja, Mr. Punya Rekha Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N., Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Rama Chandra, Mr. Manish Dhankani, Ms. Ishan Parashar & Mr. Animesh Gaur, Advs. along with the Petitioner in person.

For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CGSPC with Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Mr. Akhil Sharma, Ms. Shreya Lamba, Mr. Raghav Bakshi & Mr. Sahil Prashar, Advs. with Mr. Jyothiraditya, Additional Commissioner, CGST and Mr. Gajendra, Superintendent, CGST Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Sainyam Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Anoushka Bhalla, Ms. Tracy Sebastian Mr. Sahil Khurana & Mr. Akshay, Advs. Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty & Ms. Yamini Singh, Advs. for R-3

Case Title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.

Order Date: 9 September 2025

Bench: Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain