The Delhi High Court has while upholding Attorney-Client Privilege, slammed the GST raid on Advocate’s office and barred access to seized gadgets without lawyer’s presence.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has observed that the Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment in this manner unless and until there is some material for the GST Department to show that the advocate himself is not merely representing his client but is also personally involved in the alleged illegality. Some prima facie material would have to be shown by the GST Department.
“This Court would like to be, first satisfied as to in what manner a search and seizure was conducted at the office of an Advocate, inasmuch as any documents that may have been given by the client to his lawyer are purely confidential in nature and are protected by attorney-client privilege.” The bench said.
The bench directed the GST Department to file an affidavit. In the meantime, the Petitioner need not appear before the GST Department pursuant to the impugned summons and the date for his appearance shall be postponed beyond the next date of hearing. Insofar as the CPU is concerned, since it could be consisting of belonging to other clients of the Petitioner, the same shall not be opened in any manner and the contents of the said CPU shall not be downloaded by the GST Department without the presence of the Petitioner or any of his Authorised Representative.
The petitioner, Puneet Batra is an advocate who is stated to be a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association as also the Sales Tax Bar Association and the New Delhi Bar Association (Patiala House District Court). As per the petition, he is a regular practitioner in diverse fields of law including direct and indirect taxation, school fee regulation matters, Cyber Law and other criminal matters.
The firm M/s. Bass Legal LLP is a tax consulting firm run by the Petitioner’s parents, and the Petitioner is an Advocate who handles all the taxation matters on behalf of the firm.
The Advocate contended that one M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. which is a gaming company had engaged the Petitioner for rendering various professional and legal services, including GST filings before Registrar of Companies, Income Tax returns, Intellectual Property Rights registration work, cyber crime, etc. It is stated that the said services are being provided by the Petitioner to the client since 2023.
According to the Advocate, a search was conducted at the client’s registered premises by the GST Department. It is stated that the Advocate was handling more than 100 cases, on behalf of the client including in respect of the said search. It is stated that since the Petitioner could not contact the client despite repeated efforts the Petitioner and his legal team had withdrawn their Vakalatnama/Power of Attorney via email to the GST Department.
The advocate received a summons for appearance before the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East. According to the Petitioner-Advocate, he filed a reply stating that he is merely the lawyer for the client and the same was taken on record by the GST Department.
The Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, conducted a search at the office of the firm and the Petitioner’s office (advocate’s office). During the search various documents relating to the client have been resumed by the GST Department. In addition, the Partnership Deed related to the firm and other documents, have also been resumed by the GST Department. The GST Department has also seized electronic gadgets being a complete CPU having 1250 GB. The documents resumed and the electronic gadgets seized have been recorded vide a punchnama dated 25th July, 2025.
The court listed the matter on 4 August 2025.
Case Details
Case Title: Puneet Batra Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025, CM APPL. 45387/2025 & CM APPL. 45388/2025
Date: 28.07.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Aditya Singla
