Author: Ashwarya Sharma, Advocate & Co-Founder, RB LawCorp
Date: 25/02/2026
Introduction: When Seizure Is Mistaken for Admissibility
Search and seizure proceedings under fiscal statutes have increasingly become technology-driven. Laptops, accounting software backups, server extracts, pen drives and cloud data now form the backbone of many customs and GST demands.
Yet a fundamental evidentiary question persists:
Does the mere seizure of electronic material during a tax raid automatically make it legally admissible in adjudication?
And equally significant:
If a person acknowledges the authenticity of such digital records during investigation and never retracts that statement, can the absence of statutory certification still invalidate reliance upon that material?
It is at the intersection of these two questions – digital admissibility and evidentiary admissions – that the Supreme Court has recently provided critical clarity.
The Controversy Before the Supreme Court
In Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025-VIL-103-SC-CU), the department relied primarily on computer printouts and digital extracts seized during a customs search.
The CESTAT excluded the electronic evidence on the ground that the mandatory certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act had not been furnished.
The Revenue argued that:
- Statements recorded under Section 108 acknowledged the authenticity of the electronic material
- The statements were voluntary
- They were never retracted
The question before the Court was whether unretracted admissions could compensate for non-compliance with statutory certification requirements.
The Statutory Framework: A Mandatory Gateway
The legislative scheme is unambiguous.
Section 138C of the Customs Act,
Section 65B of the Evidence Act (now mirrored in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), and
Section 145 of the CGST Act
create a statutory gateway for admissibility of electronic records.
Each provision mandates certification identifying:
- The electronic record
- The manner of its production
- The particulars of the device
- A declaration to the best of knowledge and belief
The requirement is not procedural ornamentation. It is a condition precedent.
Seizure does not equal admissibility.
The Role of Admissions and Non-Retraction
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that certification under Section 138C(4) and Section 65B(4) is mandatory in character.
However, invoking the principles of:
impotentia excusat legem
lex non cogit ad impossibilia
the Court recognised that the law does not compel the impossible.
In the present case:
- The authenticity of the electronic records was acknowledged in statements
- The statements were voluntary
- No retraction was made
- Even in reply to the show cause notice, authenticity was not disputed
In such circumstances, the Court held that substantive compliance was sufficient and that the Tribunal erred in discarding the evidence solely on technical grounds.
Silence, in this context, operated as affirmation.
Implications Under GST
The reasoning has direct implications for GST proceedings.
Section 67 of the CGST Act empowers search and seizure.
Section 145 governs admissibility of electronic evidence.
Emails, Excel sheets, accounting software extracts, and server backups must satisfy statutory discipline before being relied upon.
Yet, where voluntary admissions acknowledging authenticity remain unretracted, such statements may significantly strengthen the department’s case.
Post-search conduct, therefore, becomes as important as procedural compliance.
The Broader Evidentiary Discipline
The judgment strikes a calibrated balance between:
Investigative efficiency; and
Statutory safeguards protecting evidentiary integrity.
It reiterates that:
Electronic evidence is potent but only when procedurally sanctified.
Admissions may bridge evidentiary gaps — but cannot routinely displace mandatory statutory safeguards.
Conclusion: Between Technology and Legality
In an era where fiscal enforcement is increasingly data-driven, this ruling delivers a measured message.
Not every seized document becomes admissible evidence.
Not every procedural lapse is fatal where authenticity stands admitted.
Not every silence is neutral.
Technology may modernise enforcement.
But legality, fairness and evidentiary discipline remain its constitutional anchor.
📎 Attached PDF for detailed reading 👉
📎 Full Published Version: https://vilgst.com/showiframe?V1Zaa1VsQlJQVDA9=TVRneE5BPT0=&page=articles
(The author is a practicing advocate, Co-Founder and Legal Head of RB LawCorp.
He specializes in GST law. Suggestions or queries can be directed to
ashsharma@rblawcorp.in. The views expressed in this article are strictly
personal.)
