GST Update

 Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 1098  Series (CAPS) 

Delhi High Court IN THE CASE OF  Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Others

Company names: The search took place at M/s Bass Legal LLP, where advocate Puneet Batra used a cabin. The GST investigation concerned its client, M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was Puneet Batra personally, so neither company should be presented as the petitioner.

The GST Department searched Bass Legal’s premises on 25 July 2025 and seized documents and a CPU from the advocate’s cabin.

Batra challenged the search and seizure, arguing that the CPU could contain privileged communications and confidential records of other clients.

The Department placed prima facie material before the Court suggesting that his role in Martkarma’s affairs might have extended beyond legal representation. The allegation was disputed.

The Court found that the search had been carried out under a valid authorisation issued under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.

 An advocate’s professional status alone did not invalidate it.

Advocate–client privilege continues to protect qualifying confidential communications. It does not provide an absolute bar to investigating an advocate’s own alleged conduct where relevant prima facie material exists.

The Court made no final finding that Batra was involved in any wrongdoing; it decided whether the search and seizure could stand at this stage.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Department was permitted to continue its investigation in accordance with law.

Safeguards for the seized data remain binding. Investigators must use the cloned copy for further examination and confine their review to material relevant to the Martkarma investigation.

Data concerning unrelated clients must remain confidential. The Court expressly said its ruling does not permit unrestricted searches of advocates’ premises or weaken protection for genuinely privileged material

LINK:CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Regards
CAPS