Case Details: Puneet Batra vs. Union of India (2025) 35 Centax 55 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Hariharan, Sachin Puri, Kirti Uppal, Avi Singh, Neeraj Malhotra, Amit Chaddha, Sr. Advocates with Kunal Malhotra, Aman Sareen, Animesh Gaba, B.C. Pandey, Rajiv Taneja, Punya Rekha Angara, Ms Vasundhara N., Aman Akhtar, Ms Sana Singh, Ms Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms Gauri Rama Chandra, Manish Dhankani, Ms Ishan Parashar and Animesh Gaur, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
- Rajesh Kumar, CGSPC, Aditya Singla, Ms Arunima Dwivedi, Arun Khatri, SSC’s with Abhishek Kumar Singh, Ritwik Saha, Ms Arya Suresh Nair, Akhil Sharma, Ms Shreya Lamba, Raghav Bakshi, Sahil Prashar, Sainyam Bhardwaj, Ms Anoushka Bhalla, Ms Tracy Sebastian, Sahil Khurana, Akshay, T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms Yamini Singh, Advocates with Jyothiraditya, Additional Commissioner & Gajendra, Superintendent, for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner in the present matter was a lawyer whose office was subject to a search and seizure by GST officials, during which a computer was seized in the absence of the lawyer. The petitioner contended that opening the computer without the lawyer’s presence would result in a serious breach of confidentiality and violate attorney-client privilege. It was submitted that any inspection of the seized computer should be conducted in the presence of the petitioner, a forensic expert on behalf of the petitioner, and senior officials of the IT department. The matter was accordingly placed before the Delhi High Court.
CESTAT Held
The Delhi High Court held that GST officials were not permitted to open the CPU or computer of any advocate without the advocate’s presence and consent, as such action could lead to a breach of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The court directed that the CPU be examined in the presence of the petitioner and either two lawyers or one lawyer and a forensic expert on his behalf, along with senior officials of the IT department and a forensic expert representing the GST Department. The entire hard drive was to be cloned, with a copy provided to the lawyer, and the CPU itself was to be resealed and remain in custody of the GST Department, subject to the condition that it could not be accessed without further orders of the court. Accordingly, the relief was granted in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India — Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022, decided on 5-4-2023 by Supreme Court — Referred [Para 15]
