While agreeing to the request of the GST Department for the parsing of the entire data of the CPU, which was seized from the petitioner, to make it searchable, the Delhi High Court allowed the parsing of the data in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, National Forensic Sciences University, Ministry of Home Affairs Lab, in the presence of the two petitioner’s (lawyer’s) counsel, two court-appointed local commissioners and two GST officials.
The Court also directed that after the parsing of the data, a copy of the same shall be provided to the petitioner, and shall be retained on a new hard drive by the Court-appointed Commissioners, which shall be kept in their custody for the next date of hearing, i.e., December 04, 2025. Further, if any objections are raised relating to the relevance of data for parsing, the same shall still be parsed, to ensure that objections do not come in the way of the technical work.
Additionally, the Court ordered that the fee of the Local Commissioners, i.e., IT officials of the Delhi High Court, fixed at Rs. 25,000 per day for each official, shall be shared equally by the petitioner and the GST Department, and the whole exercise shall be completed between 17th to 25th November 2025.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that earlier this Court had cautioned the GST Department that the CPU or computer of an advocate cannot be opened without his presence and consent, except in exceptional circumstances and subject to the Court’s further orders, recognising that such access could lead to a serious breach of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege.
However, given the sealed cover material indicating possible active involvement of the Petitioner in the business of his client, the Bench noted that this Court had permitted conditional analysis of the seized CPU.
Previously, as per the order of this Court dated September 09, 2025, the GST Department had handed over an affidavit dated October 29, 2025, on November 13, 2025, which contained certain confidential information relating to the ongoing investigation that is being carried out against M/s Martkarma Technologies Pvt Ltd, the gaming company that is stated to have engaged the present petitioner for rendering various professional and legal services.
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the GST Department, contended that the petitioner was, in fact, gaining 0.7% of revenue, which was being collected by the gaming company, and was therefore in a partnership, and was not merely associated in his professional capacity as an Advocate under an attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, the Solicitor General prayed that the Central Processing Unit (CPU), which was seized from the petitioner, be allowed for inspection.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates Avi Singh, Kirti Uppal, Mohit Mathur and Sachin Puri, along with Advocates Kunal Malhotra, Puneet Batra, Animesh Gaba, Nalinaksha Singh, Akshat Sharma, Manish Dhankani, Ishan Parashar, Arjun Singh and N. Raj Tyagi, for the Petitioner
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG S.V. Raju, along with Advocates Aditya Singla, PC Aggarwal, Amit Khatri, Arunima Dwivedi, Arya Suresh, Dhananjay Gautam, Annam Venkatesh, Shaurya Sarin, Harsh Paul Singh, Aditi Andley, Aryansh Shukla, Arunima Dwivedi, Amit Dutta, Himanshi and Monalisa Pradhan, for the Respondent
