‘Can’t be subjected to harassment in this manner’: Delhi HC raps GST dept over raids at advocate’s office
New Delhi, August 6, 2025
Batra dubbed the seizure of the CPU and other documents by the tax body as illegal. The bench, in its order, had also sought the GST department’s response to the petition
Expressing disapproval over the raids conducted by the GST (Goods and Service Tax) department in the office of a practicing advocate, the Delhi High Court recently observed that “advocate cannot be subjected to harassment in this manner” unless there is prima facie evidence with the tax body, reflecting the lawyer’s involvement in alleged illegality.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Shail Jain, made the observation on July 28, while hearing a petition moved by the advocate Puneet Batra, challenging the GST department’s search at his office on July 25. During the search, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) with 1250 GB of data was seized by the department. In his petition, Batra dubbed the seizure of the CPU and other documents by the tax body as illegal. The bench, in its order, had also sought the GST department’s response to the petition.
The case stems from a string of GST summons issued to Batra’s tax consulting firm, M/s. Bass Legal LLP, in relation to their engagement with the gaming company Martkarma Technology. Batra’s firm had been offering legal services to Martkarma since 2023. Martkarma’s premises were subjected to a GST inspection on 4th to 5th September 2024.
Batra, a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, claims that his team dropped the gaming firm as a client on September 6, 2024, after failing to contact them.
Despite withdrawing legal representation, Batra notes, that he received a summons on September 22, 2024, to appear before the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax ), Delhi East. In his reply, Batra stressed that he was merely a lawyer for the client, and the same was taken on record by the GST department.
A few days later, on October 1, 2024, Batra received a second summons by the GST office, seeking his appearance. In response, Batra had sent a written representation at the time.
The advocate notes that on June 10, he received the third summons, directing his appearance on June 12, which he failed to appear as he was travelling. The GST office on June 26, issued a fourth summons to Batra, asking him to appear on June 27, which he obliged to.
Subsequently, on July 25, the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, conducted a search at his firm. Days after the raid, a summons was again issued to Batra, to appear before the GST Department on July 28.
Seeking the court’s protection, Batra had argued before the bench that he had merely represented his client, and the GST Department is not empowered to resume any documents and seize his CPU.
While referring to the summons and subsequent office raid, the bench, observed that an 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,” It it reiterated that for the same, some prima facie material would have to be shown by the GST Department.
While underlining that the documents provided by a client to his lawyer are purely confidential and are protected by attorney-client privilege, the bench noted that it needs to be “first satisfied as to in what manner a search and seizure was conducted”.
In a relief to the advocate, the bench directed Batra that he need not appear before the GST department for the summons. The bench also ordered the GST department not to open the CPU.
“So far as the CPU is concerned, since it could consist belongings of 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 court observed.
[The Indian Express]
