MAY 13, 2026

When Seized Files Go Missing

By Vijay Kumar

IN the Netflix series Maamla Legal Hai, a reformist judge visits a police station to inspect the evidence room. Shelves are stacked with seized goods, including a bottle containing liquid evidence from an alcohol case.

As the judge gestures toward the rack, his hand accidentally knocks it. The bottle falls. Smash. The evidence is tampered, destroyed, gone. In one gesture, reform met reality - and reality shattered on the floor.

Ironically, there had already been attempts to replace this very evidence. Now, the judge himself has unwittingly destroyed it.

The Public Prosecutor, deadpan and unflappable, delivers the unforgettable line: "Your Honour, you have destroyed evidence - but don't worry, the system will handle it. You can go."

That line is not dialogue - it's doctrine - Evidence may vanish, but procedure marches on. Under official custody, evidence never vanishes - it merely reappears in disguise: from bottles to broken glass, from files to pen drives.

When GST officers raid business premises, they usually seize a truckload of documents, files, things (which they think includes cash). What happens if some of these seized goods go missing as it happened in a case in Telangana?

This scene is not just fiction. Seized GST files went missing. The Department admitted the originals were gone but assured the High Court that scanned copies would suffice. The Court recorded the State Counsel's promise: missing originals would not be relied upon, and adjudication would proceed only on available material.

The Taxpayer who had the good fortune of being subject to search and seizure approached the Telangana High Court in writ petition praying that:

The Department should be restrained from proceeding further in the Show Cause Notice dated 29.3.2025 until and unless all 14 files which are admittedly not returned to the Petitioner but are still in the custody of the Department after being seized from the Petitioner's office on 26.12.2023, are returned to the Petitioner within a specified timeframe preferably two weeks.

The High Court noted on 12.12.2025: - 2026-TIOL-664-HC-TELANGANA-GST

Yesterday, when the matter was taken up, the Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the State Tax Department is ready with the photocopies and pen drive containing digital copies of the documents enumerated at page 115 of the Writ Petition under Office Files Serial Nos.1 to 11 leaving aside Serial Nos.2, 8 and 9, which the petitioner has already got, and 6 documents enumerated at page No.116 of the Writ Petition. He sought time to bring them on record with copies thereof through affidavit.

It was also submitted that since the last date of passing of the order in respect of assessment year 2018-19 is 31.12.2025, the petitioner, having filed its reply in respect of the show cause notice for the said assessment year, may be directed to submit a supplementary reply-affidavit within a timeframe upon perusal of documents being supplied to it so that the State Tax Department is able to pass orders within the statutory period of limitation.

The case came up before the Court again on 11.03.2026 with the petitioner's grievance that the Department failed to furnish the seized documents of the missing files to enable the petitioner to submit a detailed and effective reply for proper and unbiased adjudication after fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In order to support the contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the Department which in so many words stated that the documents at serial Nos.1 to 6 of internal page 3 of the panchanama dated 26.12.2023 were missing, though the scanned copies of the same were available with the department and have been handed over to the petitioner.

So, the petitioner submits that the Department has agreed that documents were MISSING!

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the absence of those missing files, the respondents cannot rely upon them in the adjudication proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the missing files are relevant for a proper adjudication of the charges raised in the assessment proceedings.

The State Counsel stated on instructions that those missing files, originals of which are not available with the department, will not be relied upon in the adjudication proceedings for the relevant years.

The High Court ordered:

In view of the statement made on instructions by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, we are of the view that the grievance of the petitioner relating to adjudication proceedings relying upon certain seized documents, originals of which are missing with the department, has been duly addressed. The adjudication proceedings can go on, on the basis of other available materials with the department, of course with due opportunity to the petitioner to furnish its reply and compliance of the opportunity of hearing in terms of the relevant provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner's grievance was simple: without the missing files, how can charges be properly adjudicated? The Court agreed - proceedings may continue, but only on the basis of what's actually available.

The taxpayer took the matter to the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12390/2026 and the hearing took place on 05.05.2026 - 2026-TIOL-21-SC-GST when the famous Additional Solicitor General appeared for the Revenue and the Court noted:

The Department had digital copies of the documents in question. Today, the entire debate revolves around the missing 14 files. To put it briefly, the principal contention of the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in the absence of these 14 files, more particularly, few relevant documents, it is difficult for his client to establish the genuineness of the transactions between the petitioner and the respective buyers.

The High Court had observed in its order dated 11.03.2026: - 2026-TIOL-665-HC-TELANGANA-GST

In view of the Statement made on instructions by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, we are of the view that the grievance of the petitioner relating to adjudication proceedings relying upon certain seized documents, originals of which are missing with the department, has been duly redressed. The adjudication proceedings can go on on the basis of other available materials with the department, of course with due opportunity to the petitioner to furnish its reply and compliance of the opportunity of hearing in terms of the relevant provisions of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General submitted before the Supreme Court that it is a fact that the 14 files recovered and collected from the place of the petitioner were missing. There is no escape from this fact. However, the ASG very emphatically submitted that all these 14 files seized in physical form were digitized at the end of the Department. All these digital copies were provided to the petitioner in a pen drive. He also brought to the Supreme Court's notice that such understanding was actually accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as reflected from para 6 of the Order.

The Supreme Court wanted to know on which date these 14 files seized in physical form were digitized and in what manner.

The Court requested the learned ASG to file a short affidavit in this regard of a responsible Officer who can say something as regards the entire exercise of physical copies being digitized is concerned and also provide with the index of the documents which were digitized.

The matter is posted for 13-5-2026.

We will know what the Supreme Court decides when seized files go missing from the Department?

But why and how do files go missing?

In India, justice is never missing - only the evidence is. Files vanish like monsoon clouds: they thunder, disappear, and return as damp photocopies. They seem spiritual - existing in flesh during raids, attaining nirvana in custody, and reincarnating as low-resolution PDFs.