Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the return of electronic devices, records, and documents seized by the GST Department during a search conducted on 1st July 2025. As per the panchnama, several electronic gadgets including iPhones, laptops, hard drives, pen drives, and 113 firm seals were seized. The petitioner contended that since the Department had already cloned and copied the data from the seized devices, it should either return the devices or, at minimum, provide copies of the data contained therein. The Department opposed the plea, stating that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation and that providing data copies may prejudice the ongoing inquiry.

Issue: Whether the GST Department is legally obligated under Section 67(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 to provide copies of seized documents and electronic data to the taxpayer, and under what conditions such copies may be withheld.

Held that:  The Delhi High Court held that under Section 67(3) of the CGST Act, documents or other materials seized by the Department, if not relied upon for issuing notice, must be returned within 30 days of such notice. Further, Under Section 67(5), the person from whose custody documents or devices are seized has the right to make copies thereof in the presence of an authorised officer, unless the officer records in writing that doing so would prejudicially affect the investigation.

The Court noted that the Department had already cloned the devices and extracted the data as recorded in the panchnama. Hence, there was no justification to deny the petitioner copies of the seized data.

Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the GST Department. In the presence of an authorised officer, copies of all seized documents and electronic data shall be provided. The petitioner must fully cooperate with the investigation.

The Court reaffirms taxpayer rights under Section 67(5) of the CGST Act, emphasizing transparency in investigations. It clarifies that the Department cannot withhold copies of seized data unless it records specific written reasons showing prejudice to the inquiry.

Case Name: M/s BALAJI ENTERPRISES v. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, DGGI, MEERUT ZONAL UNIT & ORS. dated 06.10.2025

To read the judgment 2025 Taxo.online 2632