The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against an Advocate Samarpan Jain who was accused of conspiring with his client in a GST matter merely for filing statutory appeals and utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) through the Electronic Credit Ledger towards mandatory pre-deposit.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena has observed that prosecuting an advocate for acts done in a professional capacity strikes at the very foundation of the legal profession and citizens’ right to legal representation.
The case arose from an FIR dated 4 October 2025 registered against advocate Samarpan Jain and his client in connection with GST assessment disputes. The petitioner challenged not only the FIR but also the subsequent charge-sheet and cognizance order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
According to the petition, the advocate had been engaged by a GST assessee to file statutory appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act against assessment orders passed under Section 74 of the State GST Act involving substantial tax, interest and penalty demands for multiple financial years. The petitioner asserted that he acted strictly in his professional capacity while filing the appeals online before the appellate authority.
The controversy centered around the method adopted for payment of the statutory pre-deposit. The advocate relied upon a CBIC clarification dated 6 July 2022 and the Gujarat High Court judgment in M/s Yasho Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, later upheld by the Supreme Court, to contend that the mandatory 10% pre-deposit could validly be made through the Electronic Credit Ledger using ITC.
However, the appellate authority refused to accept the pre-deposit made through ITC and dismissed the appeals on maintainability grounds. Thereafter, instead of proceeding only against the assessee for tax recovery, the GST authorities lodged an FIR not only against the client but also against the advocate, alleging conspiracy and GST evasion causing financial loss to the State exchequer.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the advocate merely adopted a legal position based on prevailing judicial precedents and statutory interpretation. It was contended that even assuming the legal interpretation was erroneous, the act remained purely professional and could not constitute criminal conspiracy. The petitioner emphasized that there was no allegation showing his involvement in the client’s business operations or tax affairs beyond legal representation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena expressed serious concern over the prosecution of an advocate for rendering professional legal assistance. The Court noted that when questioned, the GST officer who lodged the FIR was unable to explain why the advocate had been implicated merely for filing an appeal on behalf of his client. The Bench also observed that after notice was issued in the writ petition, the police hurriedly completed the investigation, filed the charge-sheet and secured a cognizance order all on the same day.
In a strongly worded judgment, the Court observed that the criminal proceedings violated “all known principles of criminal liability.” The Bench stated that advocates routinely represent persons accused of serious offences and discharge their professional duties fearlessly. Merely advising or adopting a legal strategy on behalf of a client cannot expose an advocate to criminal prosecution.
The Court warned that if advocates were prosecuted for professional decisions taken while representing clients, it would undermine the independence of the Bar and deprive citizens of effective legal assistance guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Bench emphasized that a lawyer cannot be treated as a conspirator simply because he advanced a legal interpretation later disputed by authorities.
While referring to the dispute regarding utilization of ITC for statutory pre-deposit, the Court clarified that the advocate’s decision was based on a particular understanding of law and formed part of the appellate process. Whether that legal interpretation was right or wrong, it did not transform the advocate into a participant in any alleged tax evasion scheme.
The High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order insofar as they related to the advocate. The Court further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to ensure appropriate entries were made in the police records reflecting that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner had been quashed.
Case Details
Case Title: Samarpan Jain Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-1438-HC-2026(Ker)
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 23443 Of 2025
Date: 21/05/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Sharad Sharma, Sushil Shukla
Counsel For Respondent: G.A.
