Supreme Court Protects Advocate From Coercive GST Action

The Supreme Court on Friday, September 25, granted interim protection to advocate Puneet Batra from coercive action by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities until Monday, September 28, when it will hear his challenge against a recent Delhi High Court judgment upholding a GST search at his office and seizure of his computer and documents.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu was hearing Batra’s Special Leave Petition challenging the September 18 judgment of the Delhi High Court in Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors. The Supreme Court deferred detailed hearing of the matter after the Bench indicated that it had received the papers only recently and needed time to examine the case.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the authorities, said the agency was only analysing the data and that the case did not involve a lawyer-client relationship. The bench asked him to hold off until it had examined the record. "You have read the briefs, you know the facts; we don't. Don't do anything till Monday," the bench said.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Batra, said the agency had summoned his client for the same day and sought protection in the meantime. The matter has now been posted for September 28. In the meantime, the GST Department has been directed not to proceed against Batra.

The dispute has its origins in a search conducted by the GST Department on July 25, 2025, at the premises of Bass Legal LLP, including the cabin used by Batra. The authorities seized his Central Processing Unit (CPU), documents and other material during the operation. The search was conducted pursuant to an authorisation issued under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Batra had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the search, seizure and summons issued to him. His principal contention was that the seized computer contained confidential and privileged communications relating not only to the client under investigation but also to his other clients.

According to the High Court judgment, Batra had been providing professional services to Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL), a gaming company, since 2023. His work allegedly included GST and other tax-related matters, corporate compliances, income-tax and TDS returns, intellectual property work, trademark registration and cyber-crime matters. Batra maintained that his role was that of a legal adviser and consultant.

The GST authorities, however, contended that Batra was not merely representing MTPL as its lawyer but had allegedly become involved in the affairs and operations of the company.

The department's case was based, among other things, on material gathered during its investigation. The authorities argued that advocate-client privilege could not prevent an investigation into the lawyer's own conduct if there was prima facie material indicating that the lawyer had gone beyond the role of legal adviser.

The Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed Batra's petition on September 18. It held that while communications and material genuinely protected by advocate-client privilege are entitled to legal protection, such privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against an investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where authorities have placed prima facie material suggesting possible involvement in the affairs under investigation.

The High Court also upheld the search conducted under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. The Court examined whether the search of Batra's cabin and seizure of his CPU could be invalidated merely because the seized material might contain communications protected by professional privilege. It ultimately found no ground to interfere with the GST authorities' action.

Case Title: PUNEET BATRA VS UNION OF INDIA

Bench: Justices Datta and Nagu

Hearing Date: September 25, 2026