GST Raid on Lawyer’s Office Sparks Judicial Scrutiny in Delhi High Court
Puneet Batra vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 11021/2025)
Background:
- Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Batra, an advocate and member of various bar associations.
- Matter: He represented a client, Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., a gaming company, in various legal and GST-related matters.
- Issue: A search was conducted by the GST Anti-Evasion Branch on 25th July 2025 at the advocate’s office and seizure of CPU and documents was carried out.
Petitioner’s Claims:
- He had withdrawn representation from the client after a GST search on the client in 2024.
- He received multiple summonses but responded or gave reasons for non-appearance.
- The search and seizure of his office and his CPU (which contains confidential client data) was unjustified.
- Asserted protection under attorney-client privilege.
Court Observations:
- Prima facie concern raised over search/seizure at an advocate’s office.
- Documents shared by a client with their lawyer are confidential and protected by legal privilege.
- Harassment of advocates is not permissible unless GST authorities show prima facie evidence of the advocate’s own involvement in any illegal act.
Directions by Court:
- GST Department to file a detailed affidavit explaining the basis and manner of search and seizure.
- The Petitioner need not appear in response to the latest summon until the next hearing.
- The seized CPU shall not be opened or accessed without the presence of the Petitioner or his authorised representative.
- Next hearing fixed on: 4th August 2025