GST Department Can’t Access Computer Device Of Any Lawyer Without His Presence Or Consent: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has cautioned the GST Department against accessing the computer device of any advocate, in his absence or without his consent.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,

“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 bench was dealing with a lawyer’s petition, challenging the search and seizure at his offices, in connection with alleged GST evasion by one of his clients.

He claimed that a CPU device containing client correspondence, which is confidential in nature, was seized by the GST Department, apart from Partnership Deed related to his law firm and other documents.

The High Court noted that the CPU was seized in the absence of Petitioner. Moreover, the Department had obtained passwords to the computer and had opened and accessed the device. In this backdrop it ordered,

“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.”

Petitioner argued that he had merely represented his client and the GST Department is not empowered to resume any documents and seize his CPU which could have various other privileged material.

The High Court had earlier reprimanded the Department for harassing the lawyer. “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,” it had said.

It had also prevented the Department from opening or accessing the information stored on the CPU.

Subsequently however, the GST Department submitted that the Petitioner though being an advocate, was not merely representing the client as an advocate, but was in fact involved in running of the business and affairs of the client itself.

Various statements recorded by the GST Department during the investigation, allegedly attributing the active role played by the Petitioner, were also filed in a sealed cover.

Though the High Court refrained from making any observations in respect of the Petitioner’s role, it permitted the Department to analyse the CPU, subject to certain 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 said.

The Court directed:

• The CPU shall be examined in the presence of Petitioner, his lawyer and forensic expert, two senior officials from the High Court’s IT Department and one forensic expert on behalf of the GST Department.

• It will determine the last date when the data of the computer was accessed by any person, nature of the files accessed by the GST officials during search and whether any files have been deleted, copied, or removed.

• Files related to the client in question shall be copied and supplied to the GST Department for investigation and the CPU shall be sealed and remain in the Department’s custody.

• The GST Department will thereafter file an affidavit indicating if there are any allegations forthcoming from the data against the Petitioner, the steps it intends to take against the Petitioner, etc.

• In the meantime, it is made clear that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner by the GST Department.

• The entire hard drive of the CPU shall be cloned, and a cloned copy shall be given to the Petitioner.

The matter is next listed on October 30.

Appearance: Mr. N Hariharan, Mr. Sachin Puri, Mr. Kirti Uppal, Mr. Avi Singh, Mr. Neeraj Malhotra & Mr. Amit Chaddha, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Aman Sareen, Mr. Animesh Gaba, Mr. B C Pandey, Mr. Rajiv Taneja, Mr. Punya Rekha Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N., Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Rama Chandra, Mr. Manish Dhankani, Ms. Ishan Parashar & Mr. Animesh Gaur, Advs. along with the Petitioner in person; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CGSPC with Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advs. for R-1; Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Mr. Akhil Sharma, Ms. Shreya Lamba, Mr. Raghav Bakshi & Mr. Sahil Prashar, Advs. with Mr. Jyothiraditya, Additional Commissioner, CGST and Mr. Gajendra, Superintendent, CGST Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Sainyam Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Anoushka Bhalla, Ms. Tracy Sebastian, Mr. Sahil Khurana & Mr. Akshay, Advs. Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty & Ms Yamini Singh, Advs. for R-3

Case title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025

Click here to read order

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}