GST | Assessee Entitled To Copy Of Seized Electronic Data Unless Prejudicial To Investigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,

“A perusal of Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly shows that copies of the seized data cannot be denied to the Petitioner. However, such copies can be made in the presence of an Authorised Officer, unless it is recorded in writing, that providing copies would be prejudicial to the investigation.”

The observation was made while dealing with the petition moved by an entity seeking return of the electronic devices, documents, records, books, etc., seized by the GST Department back in July.

The seized items included 3 mobile devices, 5 pen drives, 1 hard disk drive, a laptop, a CPU and 113 Stamps/ seals of firms apart from other documents.

Petitioner submitted that since the Department has already made copies of all the records, the devices should be returned.

Alternatively, it was prayed that copies of the data contained in seized documents and electronic gadgets should be provided to the Petitioner.

The Department on the other hand defended its action by claiming that the Petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation.

The High Court observed that in terms of Section 67(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the documents or other gadgets etc., produced by a taxable person, if not relied upon by the GST Department, are to be returned within a period of 30 days.

Additionally, Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly provides that in respect of documents that are seized, the person from whom the seizure is made shall be entitled to make copies thereof, in the presence of an Authorised Officer. The only caveat is that such entitlement shall not extend to circumstances where providing copies would be prejudicial to the investigation.

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the Department had downloaded the data and cloning was also completed.

“Be that as it may, in order to resolve this issue, it is directed that Mr. Sandeep Singhal, the proprietor of the Petitioner, shall appear in person before the GST Department and in the presence of an Authorised Officer, copies of the entire set of documents and data shall be provided to him. Needless to add, the Petitioner would be duty bound to cooperate in the investigation,” the Court said and disposed of the petition.

Appearance: Mr. Shivender Kr. Sharma, Ms. Urooj Chaudhary and Ms. Esha Sharma, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jai Ahuja, Mr. Akshay Saxena, Ms. Shivali Saxena and Mr. Sanidhya Sharma, Advs. for Respondents

Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1365

Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2025

Click here to read order