Delhi High Court cautions GST officials against accessing advocates' computers without consent

The Delhi High Court recently cautioned the GST Department officials against accessing advocates’ computers in their absence [Puneet Batra v Union of India & Ors]. 

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Shail Jain said 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. 

“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,” the High Court said. 

The Court issued the warning while dealing with a plea 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. 

Batra is a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), the Sales Tax Bar Association and the New Delhi Bar Association.

The GST Department said that it was investigating a gaming company named Martkarma Technology and that Batra was not only representing the firm as a lawyer but was involved in running its business. 

Batra contended that the search targeted materials protected by the attorney-client privilege relating to his legal services and that the GST Department had no grounds to search or seize documents unless there was material evidence showing his personal involvement in illegality beyond legal representation.

After considering the case, the Court ruled that the CPU may be examined but only under strict conditions.

The Court said that the CPU may be accessed on September 11 and 12 in the presence of Batra, his representatives, Delhi High Court IT officials and forensic experts from both sides. 

A cloned copy of the hard drive will be handed over to Batra, while only files connected to Martkarma Technology may be shared with the GST Department. The CPU itself will remain sealed under court custody.

The Court also directed GST authorities to file an affidavit in redacted form, outlining allegations against Batra and any findings from the seized data, while ensuring the confidentiality of other clients.

 The Bench also barred the GST Department from taking coercive measures against the advocate until further orders.

Senior Advocates N Hariharan, Sachin Puri, Kirti Uppal, Avi Singh, Neeraj Malhotra and Amit Chaddha with advocates Kunal Malhotra, Aman Sareen, Animesh Gaba, BC Pandey, Rajiv Taneja, Punya Rekha Angara, Vasundhara N, Aman Akhtar, Sana Singh, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Arjan Singh Mandla, Gauri Rama Chandra, Manish Dhankani, Ishan Parashar and Animesh Gaur appeared for petitioner Puneet Batra.

Advocates Rajesh Kumar, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Aditya Singla, Ritwik Saha, Arya Suresh Nair, Akhil Sharma, Shreya Lamba, Raghav Bakshi, Sahil Prashar, Arunima Dwivedi, Sainyam Bhardwaj, Arun Khatri, Anoushka Bhalla, Tracy Sebastian, Sahil Khurana, Akshay, T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty and Yamini Singh represented the respondents.

[Read Order]