FACTS OF THE CASE (Professional Summary):

  1. A series of writ petitions were filed by entities belonging to the Gumber family — including Genesis Enterprises, Kabun Enterprises OPC Pvt Ltd, Aayme Sourcing Creations OPC Pvt Ltd, A V Enterprises, Modern Creation, Glitz International, Fiore Enterprises OPC Pvt Ltd, Bexley Creation Enterprises OPC Pvt Ltd, and Backbone Overseas — challenging actions taken by the CGST Department.
  2. On 22 July 2025, GST officials conducted search and seizure operations at the residential premises of the Gumber family in Noida and at business premises in Delhi, seizing documents, electronic devices, CCTV footage and other materials.
  3. The Petitioners alleged that the search and seizure were illegal, infringing their right to privacy, and that the CCTV footage from their residence should not be used; they also raised grievances about coercive actions including forced payments and withdrawal of refund applications.
  4. Petitioners sought:
    • Non‑use of CCTV footage seized from their residence;
    • De‑sealing of business premises;
    • Reversal of Input Tax Credit adjustments and refund amounts paid under alleged coercion.     

ISSUES INVOLVED:

  1. Whether the search and seizure conducted by CGST authorities were lawful under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether seizure and use of CCTV footage from residential premises violated the Petitioners’ privacy rights.
  3. Whether the Petitioners were entitled to relief prior to the completion of the ongoing GST investigation.

PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS:

• Search and seizure at the residential and business premises were unauthorised and violated due process.
• Seizing CCTV footage from the family’s residence constituted an invasion of privacy in violation of fundamental rights.
• Payments made and refund applications withdrawn were under coercion and duress.
• CGST officials transgressed authority under Section 67 of the CGST Act and Section 103 of the BNSS, 2023.
• Reliance was placed on CBIC Instruction No. 1 of 2022‑23 and judicial precedents such as Bhumi Associates v. Union of India and Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer (Del.) to contend that the search and seizure were flawed. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

• The CGST Department acted lawfully under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, on valid “reasons to believe” of tax evasion and fictitious firms under the control of the Gumber family.
• Numerous firms associated with the Petitioners were non‑operational yet claiming Input Tax Credit and filing refunds, justifying the search and seizure.
• CCTV data was seized as permitted and would not be accessed without proper SOP compliance; no privacy violation arose.
• The investigation was ongoing and necessary without judicial interference. 

COURT ORDER / FINDINGS (Professional Synthesis):

• The High Court noted that the Petitioners were effectively seeking judicial intervention mid‑investigation, which is generally impermissible unless there is clear illegality.
• The Court analysed Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, confirming that if the proper officer has reasons to believe that a taxable person has evaded tax or claimed excess ITC, inspection, search and seizure are legally permissible.
• The Court held there was no indication that the search was unauthorised; accordingly, the GST authorities had acted within the bounds of statutory power and existing safeguards.
• The Court reaffirmed that seizure of materials, including CCTV storage devices, did not automatically violate privacy so long as statutory procedures are followed and materials retained only as necessary for proceedings.
• Judicial interference at the investigation stage was declined. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:

Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides wide powers of search, seizure and inspection, including seizure of documents, goods and electronic devices where there is reason to believe of tax evasion.
Authorities must record reasons in writing and follow procedural safeguards including return of un‑relied upon materials.
 Privacy protections are not absolute in enforcement proceedings where statutory powers are validly exercised.

 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.