W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 1 of 15
$~60
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th September 2025 - W.P.(C) 11021/2025 & CM APPLs. 45387/2025 & 56648/2025
PUNEET BATRA …..Petitioner
Through: 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.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CGSPC with Mr.
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advs. for R-1
(9810226605)
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. (7558898905) 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,
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 2 of 15
Mr. Sahil Khurana & Mr. Akshay,
Advs.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq
Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty &
Ms Yamini Singh, Advs. for R-3
(9044153267)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 3 of 15
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. - 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. - 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. - 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
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 4 of 15
224, DLF Galleria Mall, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1 Extension, New Delhi – - 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. - Pursuant to the said search and seizure, a summon has also been issued
to the Petitioner on 25th July, 2025 to appear before the GST Department on
28th July 2025, at 12:30 p.m. - The present writ petition was filed on an urgent basis at that stage. On
28th July 2025, the Court had heard the ld. Sr. Counsels for the Petitioner, as
also Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. SSC appearing on behalf of the GST Department
and directed as under: –
“14. Considering the facts of the case, this Court would
like to be, first satisfied as to in what manner a search
and seizure was conducted at the office of an Advocate,
inasmuch as any documents that may have been given
by the client to his lawyer are purely confidential in
nature and are protected by attorney-client privilege. - 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. For the said
purpose, some prima facie material would have to be
shown by the GST Department. - Accordingly, let the GST Department file an affidavit
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 5 of 15
placing its stand by the next date of hearing. - In the meantime, the Petitioner need not appear
before the GST Department pursuant to the impugned
summons and the date for his appearance shall be
postponed beyond the next date of hearing. - Insofar as the CPU is concerned, since it could be
consisting of belonging to other clients of the Petitioner,
the same shall not be opened in any manner and the
contents of the said CPU shall not be downloaded by the
GST Department without the presence of the Petitioner
or any of his Authorised Representative” - On the next date of hearing i.e., 4th August 2025, the GST Department
had sought to place on record an affidavit to explain the role of the Petitioner.
The stand of the GST Department was 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. - On the said date, i.e., 4th August 2025, the following directions were
issued:
“3. Today, on behalf of the GST Department, Mr. Aditya
Singla, ld. SSC seeks to place on record an affidavit in
terms of the last order. His submission on behalf of the
GST Department is that there is evidence, at this stage,
to suspect that the Petitioner, an advocate, is not
representing the client – M/s. Martkarma Technology
Pvt. Ltd. merely as its counsel, but is also running the
affairs of the said client. - The Court has heard the parties. Let any material in
order to substantiate the allegations raised by the GST
Department be produced in a sealed cover in the Court
on the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 6 of 15 - If any remand application has been filed by the GST
Department in respect of the three arrests which are
stated to have been made in respect of the subject
proceedings, let a copy of the said applications be also
placed on record on the next date. - List on 25th August, 2025.
- Interim directions already granted on 28th July, 2025
shall continue till the next date of hearing.” - Thereafter, on 1st September 2025, a short note was handed over by Mr.
Singla. The said note sets out the alleged role of the Petitioner in the conduct
of the business of the client i.e. M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. The said
client was running an online gaming company under the domain name
‘11winner.com’. Various statements recorded by the GST Department during
the investigation were also filed along with the said note. The same were
retained in a sealed cover. The remand applications were also produced before
the Court and Mr. Singla was directed to place the same on record. - Today, submissions on behalf of the Petitioner have been made by Mr.
N. Hariharan, Mr. Kirti Uppal and Mr. Avi Singh, ld. Sr. Counsels. - Ld. Sr. Counsels for the Petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022 titled Madhyamam
Broadcasting Limited vs Union of India to argue that, the manner in which a
sealed cover is sought to be produced and relied upon, without giving copies to
the Petitioner, would be contrary to law. It is submitted that, the Petitioner
ought to be made aware of all the material which is being relied upon by the
GST Department, to be able to rebut the same, and the Court cannot be
permitted to merely see the sealed cover and make a judgment on the Petitioner.
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 7 of 15 - At this stage, one of the suggested courses of action by the ld. Sr.
counsels for the Petitioner, is that a summary of the contents of the documents,
can be provided in a redacted form, so that the same can be placed before the
Court and be given to the Petitioner as well, and thereafter submissions can also
be heard in this regard. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 67 of the
Central Goods and Services Act (hereinafter ‘CGST Act, 2017’), there must be
reasons to believe for the GST Department to investigate the Petitioner, who is
an advocate. - Mr. Jyothiraditya, Additional Commissioner, CGST, who is present in
Court today, informs the Court that the CPU of the Petitioner is lying in sealed
condition in the office of the GST Department, at the office of the
Commissioner of CGST & CX, Delhi North, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi 110002. - On behalf of the GST Department, Mr.Singla has placed before the
Court, the original file which contains the reasons for the GST Department to
investigate the Petitioner. It is Mr. Singla’s submission that revealing all the
statements made by other persons under investigation could completely
jeopardise the investigation. Such persons have clearly set out the active role
played by the Petitioner, in running the affairs of the client. - 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
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 8 of 15
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. - A perusal of the panchnama reveals the manner and details in which the
CPU has been seized. The same is extracted below:
“Panchnama dated 25.07.2025 drawn on the spot at
the registered premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, i.e.
Second Floor, Unit No.DGL224, DLF Galleria, Mayur
Vihar Phase 1 Road, New Delhi -110091.
S. No. Name Father’s Name Address Age
Pancha 1 Jatin Kumar Sh. Prem Dass H-410, B- block, Gali
No.-10, shakurpur,
Delhi-110034
30
Pancha 2 Sandeep
Kumar
Sh. Chandrakant E-252, Khajuri Khas,
Gali No.15, Delhi110094
37
Today i.e. on 25.07.2025, we the above named
panchas, on having been called upon by the officer Sh.
Piyush Soni, Inspector, Anti Evasion, Central GST
Delhi East Commissionerate, C.R. Building, IP Estate,
Delhi 110002 (herein after referred to as the officer)
presented ourselves near DLF Galleria Mall, Mayur
Vihar Extention, New Delhi-110091 to witness the
search proceedings to be carried out at principal place
of business of M/s Bass Legal LLP, Second Floor, Unit
No.DGL224, DLF Galleria, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Road,
New Delhi -110091. The officers introduced themselves
by showing us their identity cards and informed us that
a premises is required to be searched under Section
67(2) of Central Goods & Services Tax, Act, 2017 and
the officers intend to search the said premises for which
they are duly authorised by the Additional
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 9 of 15
Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Central Tax, GST-Delhi
East Commissionerate. The officers requested us to
witness the search proceedings being undertaken by
them to which we have voluntarily agreed. The officers
showed us the Search Authorization having CBIC-DIN
No.20250751ZK000061666A dated 24.07.2025 valid
for 03 days, issued by the Additional Commissioner,
Anti Evasion, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate.
We the panchas along with officers reached outside the
DLF Galleria Mall at around 01:00 PM and thereafter, the
officer teared open a sealed Sandisk branded Micro SD
Memory Card of 64 GB bearing no.5185XC0212KG and
inserted the same memory card in the Samsung Galaxy M14
cell phone carried by the officer and started the videography
at approx. 01:12 PM.
On reaching the premises, it was found that a display
board in the name of M/s Bass Legal LLP was present at the
entrance. Thereafter, the officers headed inside the premises
and asked about M/s Bass Legal LLP, one person who
introduced himself as Shri Mahesh Kumar Batra told us that
he is one of the two partners of M/s Bass Legal L.LP. The
officer, in front of us the Panchas, told him about the purpose
of the visit and showed them their identity cards and the
search authorisation having CBIC-DIN vide
no.202507512K000061666A dated 25.07.2025 valid for 03
days, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Anti Evasion,
CGST Delhi East Commissionerate. Thereafter, Shri Mahesh
Kumar Batra put his dated signatures on the said Search
Authorization in token of having seen and understood the
lawful issuance of the same and submitted the signed copy of
his identity (Adhaar card). Then the officers presented
themselves for their personal search which was politely
declined by Shri Mahesh Kumar Batra. Then the officers took
the round of the premises.
The said commercial premises was situated at Second
Floor, Unit No DGL 224, DLF Galleria, Mayur Vihar Phase
1 Road, New Delhi -110091 and consisted of approx. 900 sq.
ft. area owned by M/s Bass Legal LLP. The premises consists
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 10 of 15
of a hall for staff and two cabin:- one having nameplates in
name of Sh. Puneet Batra Advocate & Sh. Mohit Bhandari,
Advocate and other for Sh. Mahesh Kumar Batra, Tax
Consultant.
The officers, in front of us, the Panchas, asked Sh. Mahesh
Kumar Batra about all the Partners of the Company, on
which Sh. Mahesh said that he and his wife Smt. Poonam
Batra are the current partners of the company. Further, on
being asked about Sh. Puneet Batra, Sh. Mahesh Kumar
Batra stated that Sh. Puneet Batra is his son and Ex-partner
of M/s Bass Legal LLP till 07.09.2019. Further, Sh. Mahesh
Kumar Batra submitted the Partnership deed dated
06.09.2019 as evidence of the same. Thereafter, on being
asked about the whereabouts of Sh. Puneet Batra, Sh.
Mahesh Kumar Batra said that Sh. Puneet Batra is advocate
by profession and he looks after taxation matters in the said
firm.
Thereafter, the officers started search proceedings at the
premises. During the search proceedings, some documents
related to M/s Martkarma Technology Private Limited
(GSTIN:- 07AAQCM1321F120) were found at the premises
of M/s Bass Legal LLP, which were resumed by the officers
for investigation purpose. Details of the resumed documents
seen and signed by Sh. Mahesh Kumar Batra are as detailed
below:-
Sr No. Description of Documents/Items Total
Pages/Items
1 LLP Agreement Dated 29.06.2017 of M/s Bass Legal
LLP between Sh. Puneet Batra and Sh. Mahesh
Kumar Batra
01 to 13
2 Supplymentary agreement dated 06.09.2019 on
admission cum retirement as supplement to the
original LLP Agreement
01 to 03
3 Loose documents related to M/s Martkarma
Technology Private Limited (GSTIN:-
07AAQCM1321F1Z0)
01 to 12
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 11 of 15
Thereafter, summons with proper CBIC DIN was issued
to Sh. Puneet Batra to tender statement on 28.07.2025
which was received by hand by Sh. Mahesh Kumar Batra,
Partner of M/s Bass Legal LLP.
Further, the officers seized CPU of the personal
computer installed in the cabin of Advocate Sh. Puneet
Batra under GST INS-02. The details of which are listed
below:-
A) Details of Electronic Gadgets seized:
The search proceedings were started at 01:12 PM on
25.07.2025 and concluded at around 09:00 PM on the
same day in a peaceful manner. No damage was caused to
any person or property and no religious sentiments were
harmed. The hash value of video recording (Detailed in
Annexure-A) was generated by the officers with the FTK
imager software, installed in the laptop carried by the
officers and the memory card was sealed by the officers in
front of us, the panchas. The panchnama was typed by the
visiting officers on the laptop carried by the officers and
the print out of the same was taken from the printer
carried by the officers. The content of the panchnama have
been read over to us, the panchas and Shri Mahesh Kumar
Batra in vernacular and we all were satisfied with the
manner in which the proceedings were conducted and
agreed to the contents of the Panchnama. We, the Panchas
and Shri Mahesh Kumar Batra appended dated signature
on the Panchnama in token of having seen, read and
understood the same and agreed with the contents and
correctness of the Panchnama. Before leaving the
premises, the officers again offered their personal search,
which was politely declined by Shri Mahesh Kumar
Batra.
Drawn by me as dictated by the Panchas” - The panchnama extracted above would show that the CPU of the
S.
No.
Description of Items Total items - CPU black color (Fingers brand) RAM-8GB,
Internal storage-1250GB, without Serial Number
01 (One) unit
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 12 of 15
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. - 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. - 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
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 13 of 15
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. - 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
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 14 of 15
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). - 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. - 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. - 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. - After the affidavit is filed, the legal issues which have been raised in the
present matter shall be considered. - 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. - The original file, containing the reasons for the GST Department to
investigate the Petitioner, is returned to the GST Department.
W.P.(C) 11021/2025 Page 15 of 15 - The material given in a sealed cover by Mr. Singla shall be re-sealed and
be kept with the Registry of this Court and shall be sent to the Court on the next
date of hearing. - List for hearing on 30th October 2025.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
kk/sm