It stands absolutely justified, is perfectly in order and so also is in the fitness of things that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Puneet Batra vs Union of India & Ors in W.P.(C) 11021/2025 & CM APPLs. 45387/2025 & 56648/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:7897-DB that was pronounced just recently on September 9, 2025 has in no uncertain terms cautioned clearly the GST Departmental officials against accessing advocates’ computers in their absence. It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Pratibha M Singh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Shail Jain held clearly that if any advocate’s office is to be searched or their computer to be opened, the same ought to take place in their presence. It must be laid bare here that the Delhi High Court had issued the stern warning while it was dealing with a plea that had been filed by advocate Puneet Batra challenging the search by the Anti-Evasion Branch of Central Goods and Services Tax Department (CGST) at his office and the consequent seizure of his computer’s Central Processing Unit (CPU) and other documents.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Pratibha M Singh for a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Ms Justice Shail Jain sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.”

As we see, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that, “The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the search at the office of the Petitioner conducted by the GST Department on 25th July, 2025, and the consequent seizure of the Central Processing Unit (hereinafter “the CPU”) and other documents as being illegal.”

Simply put, the Division Bench specifies in para 3 revealing that, “The Petitioner - Mr. Puneet Batra is an advocate who is stated to be a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association as also the Sales Tax Bar Association and the New Delhi Bar Association (Patiala House District Court). As per the petition, he is a regular practitioner in diverse fields of law including direct and indirect taxation, school fee regulation matters, cyber law, and other criminal matters.”

Moving on, the Division Bench then also specifies in para 4 disclosing that, “The firm M/s. Bass Legal LLP (hereinafter “the firm”) is a tax consulting firm run by the Petitioner’s parents, and it is stated that the Petitioner is an Advocate who handles all the taxation matters on behalf of the firm.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 5 stating aptly that, “According to the Petitioner, one M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “the client”) which is a gaming company had engaged the Petitioner for rendering various professional and legal services, including GST filings before Registrar of Companies, Income Tax returns, Intellectual Property Rights registration work, cyber-crime cases, etc. It is stated that the said services are being provided by the Petitioner to the client since 2023.”

While elaborating further, the Division Bench then points out in para 6 mentioning that, “According to the Petitioner, a search was conducted at the client’s registered premises on 4th and 5th September, 2024 by the GST Department. It is stated that the Petitioner was handling more than 100 cases, on behalf of the client including in respect of the said search. Further, it is stated that since the Petitioner could not contact the client despite repeated efforts the Petitioner and his legal team had withdrawn their Vakalatnama/Power of Attorney vide email dated 6th September, 2024 to the GST Department.”

As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 7 laying bare stating succinctly that, “Thereafter, on 22nd September, 2024, the Petitioner received the summons for appearance before the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East on 23rd September, 2024. According to the Petitioner, he filed a reply stating that he is merely the lawyer for the client and the same was taken on record by the GST Department. A second summon was received on 1st October, 2024 directing appearance on 3rd October, 2024. The Petitioner could not appear on the said date, however, a written representation was filed by him which was also taken on record. On 10th June, 2025 a third summon was received, directing appearance on 12th June, 2025, however, the Petitioner could not appear on the said date as he was travelling. Finally, on 26th June, 2025 he was again served with another summon dated 19th June, 2025 and on 27th June, 2025 he appeared before the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, and gave his statement.”

Do note, the Division Bench while shedding light on the grievance of the petitioner notes in para 8 that, “The grievance of the Petitioner presently is that on 25th July, 2025 the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, conducted a search at the office of the firm and the Petitioner’s office situated at Second Floor, Unit No. DGL 224, DLF Galleria Mall, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1 Extension, New Delhi - 110091. During the said search various documents relating to the client have been resumed by the GST Department. In addition, the Partnership Deed related to the parents' firm and other documents, have also been resumed by the GST Department. The GST Department has also seized electronic gadgets being a complete CPU having 1250 GB. The documents resumed and the electronic gadgets seized have been recorded vide a panchnama dated 25th July, 2025.”

Notably, the Division Bench then notes in para 19 that, “Heard. At this stage, the Court refrains from making any observations in respect of the role of the Petitioner, or whether he was active in running the business of the client or not. The only direction that the Court is inclined to pass at this stage, without going into the merits of this matter, is to permit the CPU to be analysed by the GST Department, subject, however, to various precautions and conditions. The said precautions and conditions are important and significant, inasmuch as the GST Department ought not to be given access to the data related to any third-party clients of the Petitioner. It is further noted that the CPU was seized during the raid which was conducted on the firm, in which the Petitioner’s parents are partners.”

Do further note, the Division Bench then notes in para 21 that, “The panchnama extracted above would show that the CPU of the Petitioner was seized in the presence of, Sh. Mahesh Kumar Batra, Petitioner’s father, but in the absence of the Petitioner. A perusal of the photographs on record further reveals that the password to the Petitioner’s computer appears to have been obtained by the officials of the GST Department. The said photographs show that the GST officials have opened and accessed the computer of the Petitioner.”

Most significantly, most rationally and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 22 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “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 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.”

It is worth noting that the Division Bench while adding a caveat observes in para 23 that, “At this point in time, the Court is, however, 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:

(1)     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.

(2)     Two senior officials of the IT Department, Delhi High Court i.e., Mr. Sarsij Kumar, Director (IT Branch) (Mob. No. 9650006723) and Mr. Zameem Ahmad Khan, Joint Director (IT Branch) (Mob. No.9650006732), shall also be present at the time when the CPU is accessed.

(3)     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:

(1) 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:

(i)      When was the last date when the data was accessed by any person.

(ii)     What was the nature of the files accessed on 25th July 2025, when the GST officials had inspected the said CPU.

(iii)    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.

(2) 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:

(1) 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:

(1)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 this Court.

It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes in para 24 that, “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:

(i)      Any allegations against the Petitioner based on the data which was given to the GST Department from the said CPU;

(ii)     The other steps that the GST Department intends to take against the Petitioner or any other person based on the said data;

(iii)    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;

(iv)    The data determent in terms of paragraph - 23(II)(i), 23(II)(ii) and 23(II)(iii).”

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 25 noting that, “This affidavit, in a redacted form, shall be supplied to ld. Sr. Counsels for the Petitioner and shall be filed in the Registry. On the next date of hearing, however, the non-redacted affidavit shall also be shown to the Court.”

While adding more to it, the Division Bench further directs in para 26 holding that, “The inspection of the CPU of the Petitioner, in the presence of the persons as directed above, shall take place on 11th September 2025 and 12th September 2025 from 11:00 am onwards on both days.”

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 27 that, “The fee of the IT officials of the Delhi High Court is fixed at lumpsum Rs.1,00,000/- each, which shall be shared equally by the Petitioner and the GST Department.”

For clarity, the Division Bench makes it clear in para 29 stating that, “In the meantime, it is made clear that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner by the GST Department. The Petitioner shall only be present during the inspection of the CPU, to enable identification of files.”

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 32 that, “List for hearing on 30th October 2025.”