On 28 September 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld a GST search of an advocate’s office and the seizure of its computers. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice in Puneet Batra v. Union of India and questioned the Department on the reasons for the search, which had not been disclosed to the petitioner.
What was decided
The GST Department searched the office of Advocate Puneet Batra and his law firm on 25 July and seized computers. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain, dismissed his writ petition, holding that the search was authorised under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. It also held that advocate-client privilege is not an absolute bar to investigating a lawyer’s own conduct where prima facie material suggests the lawyer acted beyond the role of a legal adviser.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that there was no valid reason to believe, that a third party’s premises could not be searched on these facts, and that the reasons were not disclosed. The Additional Solicitor General argued that no advocate-client relationship existed and that the investigation concerned a large alleged fraud. The Court stayed the High Court judgment, gave three weeks for a response, and directed the petitioner to appear for investigation on 30 September.
Why it matters
Section 67 searches are frequently conducted at the premises of professionals, consultants and associated persons, not only the taxpayer. The pending case is expected to address how far the Department must have, and disclose, its reasons to believe before searching such premises, and how privileged material is to be protected.
The interim order does not prevent investigation; the petitioner was directed to appear. It does signal that the Supreme Court is examining the basis of the search closely.
Practical points
- During a search, ask to see the authorisation and note the name and designation of the officers.
- Insist on a complete panchnama and an inventory of devices and data seized, with hash values where possible.
- Identify privileged or third-party client material at the outset and record an objection in writing.
- Seek copies of seized data and statements, and continue to cooperate with summons.
Sources: LiveLaw, 28 Sep 2026; Verdictum, Sep 2026.
For a confidential discussion on GST searches and seizure of records, see GST Investigation, Summons & Arrest Lawyer.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
