FACTS OF THE CASE

A cluster of writ petitions (including W.P.(C) 13821/2025, 13880/2025, 14183/2025, 14186/2025, 14188/2025, 14210/2025, 14230/2025, 14232/2025, and 14045/2025) were filed by entities owned/controlled by members of the Gumber family challenging the legality of search and seizure operations conducted by CGST officials on 22nd July 2025.

The petitions alleged that CGST officers conducted raids at the family’s residential premises in Noida and business premises in Delhi without proper authority, resulting in the seizure of CCTV footage, electronic devices, business locks being broken open, and coercive conduct forcing payments and withdrawal of GST refund applications.

Petitioners sought:

  • Non‑use of residential CCTV footage seized;
  • De‑sealing business premises;
  • Reversal of coerced payments and ITC adjustments;
  • Protection of fundamental rights, including privacy and procedural fairness under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and BNSS, 2023. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the CGST search and seizure operations were lawful and within the scope of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?
  2. Whether seizure of CCTV footage from the private residence violated the right to privacy?
  3. Whether payments and withdrawal of refund applications were made under coercion and duress by CGST officials?
  4. Whether the court should intervene at the investigative stage? 

PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS

  • The search was allegedly unauthorized and illegal, with panchnama defective and failure to properly detail seizure of CCTV footage.
  • Seizing CCTV data from a residential premise constituted extreme violation of privacy.
  • Payments and withdrawals of GST refunds were executed under coercion and duress during the investigation.
  • Actions transgressed powers under Sections 67 of CGST Act, 2017 and 103 of BNSS, 2023.
  • Reliance placed on judicial decisions like Bhumi Associates v. Union of India and Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer and CBIC instructions. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS (CGST Department)

  • Proper officers had valid “reasons to believe” evasion and fictitious firms operated by the Gumber family, justifying search and seizure under Section 67(1) & (2).
  • Detailed multi‑level supplier network suggested large‑scale tax evasion using fake ITC credits.
  • Seized CCTV media had not yet been opened and would follow Standard Operating Procedure, so no privacy breach existed.
  • Business premises were entered lawfully with keys from tenant.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

The Court examined the scope of Section 67 of the CGST Act which permits search, seizure, and retention of documents/things subject to procedural safeguards.

The Court observed:

  • Petitioners were effectively seeking to interfere with an ongoing investigation at an interlocutory stage.
  • On admitted facts, there was no challenge to the authority for search itself or to the “reason to believe”.
  • The seizure of CCTV footage and business premises entry did not on its face violate procedural safeguards because no evidence indicated improper use or access yet.
  • Allegations of coercion regarding payments and refund withdrawals lacked admissible evidence demonstrating unlawful conduct as defined under statute.

The writ petitions were predominantly rejected, and it was held that investigation must be allowed to proceed without judicial interference at this preliminary stage.

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS

  • Section 67(2) permits seizure if goods/documents are “useful or relevant” for tax proceedings, and allows officers to retain such things only for necessary examination.
  • Right to privacy claims were attenuated where data was not accessed or misused at the time of hearing.
  • Judicial restraint applies where the statutory framework for investigation has not been violated on plain reading of provisions invoked. 

SECTIONS INVOLVED

  • Section 67 – Power of inspection, search and seizure — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
  • Section 103 – Search & seizure provision reference — BNSS, 2023 (as argued by Petitioners). 

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS15092025CW138212025_155439.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.