The Delhi High Court, in a significant order concerning the protection of attorney-client privilege, has permitted the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department to examine a computer processing unit (CPU) seized from an advocate’s office, but only under a stringent set of conditions supervised by the Court’s own IT officials. The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain on September 9, 2025, directed that no coercive action be taken against the advocate and cautioned the department against searching a lawyer’s office without the advocate’s presence.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Puneet Batra challenging the legality of a search conducted at his office on July 25, 2025, by the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, and the subsequent seizure of his CPU and other documents.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Advocate Puneet Batra, was providing professional and legal services to a client, M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., a gaming company, since 2023. The GST Department conducted a search at the client’s premises in September 2024. Subsequently, the department issued multiple summons to Mr. Batra, and he appeared and gave his statement on June 27, 2025.
The grievance leading to the present petition arose on July 25, 2025, when GST officials searched the office of M/s. Bass Legal LLP, a tax consulting firm run by the petitioner’s parents, where Mr. Batra also has his office. During this search, officials seized documents related to the client and others, as well as a CPU from Mr. Batra’s cabin. The seizure was recorded in a panchnama dated July 25, 2025.
In its initial hearing on July 28, 2025, the Court had raised serious concerns about the search, stating, “any documents that may have been given by the client to his lawyer are purely confidential in nature and are protected by attorney-client privilege.” The Court further observed, “The Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment in this manner unless and until there is some material for the GST Department to show that the advocate himself is not merely representing his client but is also personally involved in the alleged illegality.”
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Counsels Mr. N. Hariharan, Mr. Kirti Uppal, and Mr. Avi Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that for the GST department to conduct such an investigation against an advocate, there must be “reasons to believe” as stipulated under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. They also contested the department’s attempt to rely on evidence submitted in a sealed cover, arguing it was contrary to law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India, as it deprived the petitioner of the ability to rebut the allegations.
On behalf of the GST Department, Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. SSC, submitted that the department possessed evidence suggesting the petitioner was “not representing the client M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. merely as its counsel, but is also running the affairs of the said client.” He argued that revealing witness statements at this stage would “completely jeopardise the investigation.”
Court’s Analysis and Directions
The Court, after reviewing the panchnama, noted that the petitioner’s CPU was seized in his absence, and photographs on record suggested that officials had opened and accessed his computer. The bench issued a strong caution to the department regarding such actions.
“Needless to add, 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 Court observed. It further stated, “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.”
Refraining from making any observations on the merits of the allegations at this stage, the Court permitted the examination of the seized CPU subject to the following detailed conditions to safeguard the petitioner’s data and the confidentiality of his other clients:
- Supervised Presence: The CPU will be examined in the presence of the petitioner, his two lawyers or one lawyer and a forensic expert, a forensic expert from the GST department, and two senior officials from the IT Department of the Delhi High Court, namely Mr. Sarsij Kumar, Director (IT Branch) and Mr. Zameem Ahmad Khan, Joint Director (IT Branch).
- Data Determination: The team will first determine the last date of data access, the nature of files accessed by GST officials on July 25, 2025, and whether any files were deleted or copied. The entire hard drive will be cloned, and a copy will be provided to the petitioner.
- Segregation of Data: With the assistance of the petitioner, all files related to the client, M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., and any associated entities will be identified, copied onto a separate hard disk, and supplied to the GST Department for investigation.
- Custody of CPU: After this process, the original CPU will be sealed again and remain in the custody of the GST Department, not to be accessed further without court orders.
The Court has directed the GST department to file an affidavit based on the retrieved data, detailing any allegations against the petitioner and the intended course of action. A redacted version of this affidavit is to be provided to the petitioner’s counsel.
The court has stayed any coercive measures against the petitioner and has scheduled the inspection of the CPU for September 11 and 12, 2025.
The matter is listed for the next hearing on October 30, 2025.
