The Delhi High Court has permitted the GST department to examine the CPU of the advocate subject to various Conditions.
Conditions For Permitting GST Dept. To Examine Advocate’s CPU
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain inclined to permit the CPU of the Petitioner to be examined subject to the following conditions:
(I) Persons in whose presence the CPU shall be examined:
- The CPU shall be permitted to be examined by the GST officials in the presence of the Petitioner and two lawyers or one lawyer and a forensic expert on his behalf.
- Two senior officials of the IT Department, Delhi High Court shall also be present at the time when the CPU is accessed.
- One forensic expert on behalf of the GST Department shall also be permitted to be present at the time when the CPU is accessed.
(II) Data that is to be determined:
In the presence of the above persons, the CPU shall be connected to a monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse. Upon accessing the same, the following shall be determined:
- When was the last date when the data was accessed by any person.
- What was the nature of the files accessed on 25th July 2025, when the
- GST officials had inspected the said CPU.
- Whether any files have been deleted, copied, or removed from the said CPU at any point in time and if so, details of the same along with the dates and time.
- The entire hard drive of the CPU shall be cloned, and a cloned copy shall be given to the Petitioner.
(III) Identified Data to be copied on a hard disk:
- After the above procedure is undertaken, with the assistance of the Petitioner, all the files related to the client i.e. M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. and any entities/individuals who may be related to the said client shall be identified. The files so identified shall be copied on a hard disk and supplied to the GST Department for further investigation.
(IV) Steps to be followed post determination of data:
After the above procedure is undertaken, the CPU itself shall be sealed and shall remain in the custody of the GST Department, subject to the condition that the same shall not be accessed or opened without further orders of the Court.
GST Dept. To File Affidavit
Any data which is received by the GST Department, which is retrieved from the CPU of the Petitioner, shall be analysed by the GST Department and an affidavit shall be filed stating the following:
- Any allegations against the Petitioner based on the data which was given to the GST Department from the said CPU;
- The other steps that the GST Department intends to take against the Petitioner or any other person based on the said data;
- The role of the Petitioner as is revealed from the various statements recorded, in a redacted form, without revealing the names of the persons who have disclosed the said data;
- The data determent in terms of paragraph – 23(II)(i), 23(II)(ii) and 23(II)(iii).
Background
The writ petition was filed by Mr. Puneet Batra, an advocate, challenging the search and seizure conducted by the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, at his office on 25th July 2025. The Petitioner is a practicing advocate and a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Sales Tax Bar Association, and the New Delhi Bar Association. He practices in diverse areas of law including taxation, IPR, cyber, and criminal matters. His parents run a tax consulting firm, M/s Bass Legal LLP, where he handles taxation-related work. One of his clients, M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., a gaming company, had engaged him since 2023 for legal and professional services, including GST compliance, income tax filings, and cybercrime matters.
In September 2024, the GST Department had conducted a search at the client’s premises. Since the Petitioner could not establish contact with the client thereafter, he withdrew his Vakalatnama by email on 6th September 2024. Subsequently, the Petitioner was served with summons in September and October 2024, and again in June 2025. While he initially responded through written replies, he eventually appeared before the Anti-Evasion Branch on 27th June 2025 and recorded his statement.
Despite this, on 25th July 2025, the GST Department carried out a search at the Petitioner’s office in Mayur Vihar. During this search, various documents, including those belonging to the client, the partnership deed of his parents’ firm, and a CPU containing 1250 GB of data, were seized. A panchnama was drawn, and a fresh summon was issued directing the Petitioner to appear on 28th July 2025. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Delhi High Court challenging the search and seizure as being illegal and violative of attorney–client privilege.
On 28th July 2025, the Court observed that any documents entrusted by a client to a lawyer are confidential in nature, protected by privilege, and cannot be indiscriminately seized. It directed the GST Department to file an affidavit showing prima facie material of the Petitioner’s involvement in illegality beyond his role as counsel. The Court also granted interim protection by postponing the Petitioner’s appearance, and restrained the Department from opening or accessing the seized CPU without his or his representative’s presence.
On 4th August 2025, the GST Department submitted that there was material to suggest that the Petitioner was not merely representing his client but was actively involved in running its business. The Court directed the Department to place this material in a sealed cover and also sought copies of remand applications filed in connection with arrests made during the same investigation. The interim protection was extended.
Subsequently, on 1st September 2025, the Department filed a short note alleging that the Petitioner played a role in the business operations of M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., which ran an online gaming platform under the domain name 11winner.com. Various statements recorded during investigation and the remand applications were produced before the Court in a sealed cover.
Thus, the core issues before the Court are whether the search and seizure at the advocate’s office were legally justified, whether attorney–client privilege protects the seized material, and whether the Petitioner was merely acting as legal counsel or was directly involved in managing the client’s business operations.
Conclusion
The court said that 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 has held that the inspection of the Petitioner’s CPU shall take place on 11th and 12th September 2025 from 11:00 a.m. onwards on both days. This inspection is to be carried out in the presence of the persons already directed by the Court, so that the Petitioner can identify the files belonging to his clients.
The Court has further held that the IT officials of the Delhi High Court will oversee the process, and their fee has been fixed at a lump sum of ₹1,00,000/- each. This fee shall be borne equally by the Petitioner and the GST Department.
The Court has also held that once the affidavit is filed by the GST Department, the legal issues raised in the present matter shall be considered on merits.
In the meantime, the Court has made it clear that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner by the GST Department. His presence is required only for the purpose of identifying files during the CPU inspection.
Lastly, the Court has held that the original file, which contains the reasons for the GST Department to investigate the Petitioner, shall be returned to the Department.
Case Details
Case Title: Puneet Batra Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025 & CM APPLs. 45387/2025 & 56648/2025
Date: 09/09/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: N Hariharan
Counsel For Respondent: Rajesh Kumar
Read More: DRI Uncovers Major Drug Trafficking Network in Kolkata, Seizes Narcotics Worth Rs. 26 Crore
