Puneet Batra Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the search conducted on 25 July 2025 at the premises of Bass Legal LLP, including the cabin used by the petitioner, Advocate Puneet Batra, and the consequential seizure of his CPU, documents and other material. The petitioner contended that the search and seizure were unauthorized and infringed advocate-client privilege because the seized electronic data was likely to contain confidential information concerning multiple clients, including Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL).
The respondents maintained that the search was authorized under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that material gathered during investigation prima facie indicated that the petitioner was not merely acting as MTPL’s legal adviser but was involved in its affairs and operations. The Court considered, among other issues, the production of material in sealed cover, the absence of a show cause notice against MTPL, alleged changes in the respondents’ stand, the relevance of departmental instructions and the Master Circular on SCN, Adjudication and Recovery dated 10 March 2017, and whether the search authorization was supported by the requisite reasons to believe.
The Court held that the search was supported by a valid authorization under Section 67(2) and could not be invalidated merely because the premises were those of an Advocate. At the same time, the Court emphasized that genuine advocate-client privilege and confidential information of unrelated third-party clients remain protected. The Court also considered the later resolution of MTPL consenting to production of its material, but held that it could not retrospectively validate the search and did not authorize examination of unrelated client data. The writ petition was dismissed and the interim orders were vacated subject to continuing safeguards concerning privileged and confidential material.
