Background of the Case
This writ petition arises from a GST search conducted on 25 July 2025 at the office of M/s Bass Legal LLP, New Delhi—where the petitioner, Adv. Puneet Batra, practices. The petitioner is a Delhi-based advocate and former partner of the firm. He regularly handles direct/indirect tax and other litigation. The GST Department had earlier searched the premises of one of his clients, M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (an online gaming company operating “11winner.com”), in September 2024. After multiple rounds of summons to the petitioner over late-2024 and mid-2025, the Department searched the advocate’s office, resumed documents (including partnership deeds and client papers) and seized a CPU (1,250 GB) allegedly used by the petitioner.
The petition challenges the legality of the search and seizure at an advocate’s office, the seizure of confidential materials and electronic devices, and the summons that followed, arguing breach of attorney-client privilege and lack of “reasons to believe” under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Key Facts & Procedural Timeline
4–5 Sep 2024: GST search at Martkarma’s premises.
6 Sep 2024: Petitioner and team withdraw Vakalatnama/POA for client via email to GST.
Sep–Oct 2024; Jun 2025: Series of summons; written replies/representations filed; petitioner appears on 27 Jun 2025 and gives a statement.
25 Jul 2025: GST search at Bass Legal LLP (DLF Galleria, Mayur Vihar).
Resumption of client-related papers; CPU (Fingers brand; 8GB RAM; 1,250GB storage) seized.
Panchnama records search chronology, videography, identities of panchas, and seized items.
28 Jul 2025 (First HC order):
Court questions how and why a search was conducted at an advocate’s office given attorney-client privilege.
Interim protection: Petitioner need not appear on the summons until next date; CPU not to be opened or its contents accessed without petitioner/authorized representative present.
GST to file an affidavit justifying the search and showing prima facie material of petitioner’s personal involvement in alleged illegality (beyond mere representation).
4 Aug 2025 (Second HC order):
GST claims petitioner was running the client’s affairs, not merely acting as counsel; seeks to file affidavit.
Court directs GST to produce supporting material in sealed cover; remand applications in connected arrests to be placed on record; interim protection continues.
1 Sep 2025: GST hands over a short note (sealed cover) outlining petitioner’s alleged role; statements recorded during investigation produced; remand applications to be filed.
Current Order (September 2025): Court permits limited examination of the seized CPU under strict, court-controlled protocol; seeks a redacted affidavit from GST; no coercive steps against petitioner in the meantime; next hearing on 30 Oct 2025.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Illegality of Search at Advocate’s Office:
Client documents given to a lawyer are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege; a search in such premises requires heightened scrutiny and concrete reasons showing the advocate’s personal complicity, not mere representation.
Lack of “Reasons to Believe” under Section 67 CGST:
GST has not shown credible material that the petitioner personally participated in any alleged tax evasion or ran the client’s business; thus search/seizure and subsequent summons are ultra vires.
Sealed-Cover Procedure is Impermissible:
Relying on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (SC, 2022), the petitioner argues that deciding rights on sealed cover material without disclosure violates due process. At minimum, a redacted summary must be shared so the petitioner can effectively rebut.
Improper Handling of Electronic Evidence:
GST officials accessed the computer (as evident from photographs and panchnama context) and obtained the password in the petitioner’s absence—risking contamination of privileged and third-party data.
Revenue’s (GST Department’s) Arguments
Role Beyond Legal Representation:
Based on statements and materials collected (produced in sealed cover), GST contends that the petitioner was not merely counsel but was actively running the business/affairs of the client (Martkarma/“11winner.com”), justifying the search and the seizure.
Protection of Ongoing Investigation:
Full disclosure of witness statements and internal notes could jeopardize the investigation; hence production in sealed cover is warranted at this stage.
Lawful Authorization & Procedure:
The search was authorized by a competent authority under Section 67(2) CGST; panchnama documents videography, hash generation, and itemization of resumed documents and seized CPU—showing procedural compliance.
Court’s Directions & Decision (Interim)
The Delhi High Court balanced the competing interests of privilege & due process with the needs of investigation, and passed the following interim directions:
1) Safeguards Around Attorney-Client Privilege
The Court cautions that an advocate’s computer must not be opened without the advocate’s presence/consent, except in exceptional circumstances and subject to court orders—to avoid breaching confidentiality and privilege.
2) Controlled, Forensic Access to the CPU
The Court permits limited examination of the seized CPU subject to strict conditions:
Who must be present:
Petitioner and two professionals on his behalf (two lawyers or one lawyer + one forensic expert).
Two senior IT officials of the Delhi High Court (Director & Joint Director, IT Branch).
One forensic expert for the GST Department.
What must be determined first:
Last access date/time to the CPU data.
Nature of files accessed on 25 Jul 2025 (search date).
Whether files were deleted/copied/removed at any time (with dates/times).
Cloning & Copies:
Entire hard drive to be cloned; one cloned copy to be handed to the petitioner.
Filtering Relevant Client Data:
With petitioner’s assistance, only files related to Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (and related entities/individuals) to be identified, copied to a separate hard disk, and provided to GST for investigation.
Post-access custody:
After the above, the CPU will be re-sealed and remain with GST; no further access without court’s leave.
Logistics & Costs:
Inspection scheduled on 11–12 September 2025, from 11:00 AM both days.
IT officials’ fees fixed at Rs 1,00,000 each, shared equally by petitioner and GST.
3) Disclosure & Filing Obligations on GST
GST must file an affidavit (redacted copy to petitioner) stating:
Allegations against the petitioner based on CPU data supplied.
Further steps proposed against petitioner/others arising from such data.
Petitioner’s role as per recorded statements (names redacted).
Factual results of the CPU audit: last access, files accessed on 25.07.2025, and any deletions/copies/removals (with timestamps).
The unredacted version is to be shown to the Court. The sealed materials submitted earlier remain with the Registry.
4) Interim Protection
No coercive measures against the petitioner until the next hearing.
The petitioner’s presence is only for CPU inspection to help identify files.
5) Next Hearing
Matter listed for 30 October 2025, when the Court will consider the legal issues after reviewing the GST affidavit and CPU inspection results.
GST Case Law Puneet Batra Versus Union Of India
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 2409 (DELHI)(Click here to read full case law)
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
