The Delhi High Court has held that where the Revenue places prima facie material showing that an Advocate was actively involved in the affairs of the entity under investigation, the protection of professional privilege does not operate as an absolute bar to search, seizure and examination of electronic devices, subject to safeguards for genuinely privileged third-party client data. The Court also held that a search authorization under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act for the premises of a law firm covers all cabins situated within those premises, and the mere fact that one cabin is used by an Advocate does not, by itself, render the search of that cabin unauthorized.
The High Court clarified that Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 confers a privilege for the protection of the client and not a personal privilege of the Advocate. Consequently, the privilege cannot be invoked to prevent investigation into the Advocate’s own activities where those activities are themselves the subject matter of investigation. Further, the investigative material, including statements of persons examined, produced before the Court in a sealed cover during the pendency of investigation need not be furnished to the person under investigation, since disclosure cannot be directed as a matter of course where it may impede or interfere with the investigation; the Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited principle was distinguished on facts.
The Court emphasised that non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice to the entity under investigation at the stage of search and investigation does not render the search or the summons illegal, since issuance of a Show Cause Notice is a subsequent stage that arises only if the investigation results in adjudicatory proceedings. The Court also pointed out that Administrative instructions, Master Circulars and internal manuals regulate the manner of exercise of statutory power but cannot curtail or extinguish the power conferred by the statute; in the absence of demonstrated violation of a mandatory statutory requirement affecting the validity of the authorization or jurisdiction, procedural deviation does not render the search void ab initio.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed that the Petitioner’s cabin is situated inside the office of Bass Legal and forms part and parcel of the same premises, and the Petitioner’s letterhead carries the same address. On examination of the reasons to believe recorded by the competent authority, the Court was satisfied that the reasons disclosed a sufficient basis for authorizing the search of the Bass Legal premises under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, and once the premises were validly authorized to be searched, the fact that one of the cabins within those premises was being used by the Petitioner would not, by itself, render the search of that cabin unauthorized.
On the question of advocate-client privilege, the Court observed that the protection is intended to preserve the confidentiality of communications made in the course of the professional relationship between an Advocate and his client, and that the privilege attaches to the nature of the communication or material and the circumstances in which it came into existence, and does not follow merely from the fact that the material is found in the office or possession of an Advocate. The Court further observed that the privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is, in substance, a privilege conferred for the protection of the client and not a personal privilege of the Advocate, since the statutory scheme prohibits an Advocate from disclosing a professional communication except with the express consent of the client.
On the alleged change of stand, the Court observed that an investigation is not static and, with the progress of investigation and collection of further material, the Investigating Agency is entitled to examine the role of persons who may subsequently emerge as having a connection with the transactions under investigation, and the subsequent attribution of a role to the Petitioner cannot, without more, be characterised as a change of stand or as changing the goalpost. On the reliance placed on Instructions No. 02/2022, the Master Circular dated March 10, 2017, and Clause 16.24 of the CBI Manual, 2020, the Court observed that administrative instructions and circulars may regulate the manner in which the statutory power is to be exercised but cannot curtail or extinguish a power which the statute itself confers, and in the absence of any demonstrated violation of a mandatory statutory requirement affecting the validity of the authorization or the jurisdiction to conduct the search, such procedural deviation would not, by itself, warrant declaring the entire search illegal.
On the Board Resolution dated Sep 29, 2025, the Court observed that the Resolution is subsequent to the search conducted on July 25, 2025, and cannot be relied upon to retrospectively validate the authorization or the search but is relevant only for recording the present position with regard to the material belonging to MTPL and the consent furnished by MTPL for its handover to the Respondent Department. The Court also observed that the fact of deletion of certain files from a remote location during the search, by itself, cannot be treated as establishing any wrongdoing on the part of the Petitioner, but is a circumstance which the Respondents are entitled to examine in the course of the investigation.
Also read Supreme Court Stays P&H High Court Judgment Striking Down Section 147A Of Income Tax Act
Briefly, The Petitioner, Puneet Batra, is an Advocate enrolled with the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Sales Tax Bar Association and the New Delhi Bar Association and primarily handles direct and indirect taxation matters through M/s Bass Legal LLP, a firm constituted by his father and operating from a 900 sq. ft. office at DLF Galleria Mall, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, New Delhi. From June 2023, M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL), a gaming company running the domain 11winner.com, engaged the Petitioner for professional services spanning GST filings, ROC work, income-tax and TDS returns, trademark registration, cyber-crime matters and other compliances, though MTPL took over its own statutory and financial compliances from October 2023 onwards.
The GST Department conducted a search at MTPL’s registered premises on 04 and 05 September 2024, during which the Petitioner appeared as an authorised representative; he subsequently withdrew his vakalatnama by email dated Sep 06, 2024, after MTPL became non-responsive. The Petitioner was thereafter issued summons, appeared before the Superintendent, Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, and claimed professional privilege.
The principal grievance arises from the search conducted on July 25, 2025, at the Bass Legal premises under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, pursuant to an authorization dated July 24, 2025, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate. During the search, documents relating to MTPL were found and seized, and a 1250 GB CPU installed in the Petitioner’s cabin was also seized under GST INS-02. Since the Petitioner was not present, the password to the computer was obtained from his father, Mahesh Kumar Batra. A panchnama was drawn on July 25, 2025, and a summons was issued requiring the Petitioner to appear on July 28, 2025.
The Court recorded the issue of advocate-client privilege, directed the GST Department to place its stand on record, and ordered that the CPU not be opened or its contents downloaded without the presence of the Petitioner or his authorised representative. By the order dated Sep 09, 2025, the Court prescribed detailed safeguards for examination, cloning and identification of data on the CPU, including the presence of two IT officials of the Delhi High Court as Local Commissioners, a forensic expert for the GST Department, and the Petitioner’s lawyers. By the order dated Nov 13, 2025, the Court permitted parsing of the data at the DGGI-NFSU (MHA) Lab and noted that the Local Commissioners’ Report recorded disputes between the parties regarding identification and handing over of files, with the Petitioner declining to release MTPL-related emails citing advocate-client privilege.
The Petitioner admitted that certain files were deleted from a remote location while the search was underway and declined the Court’s offer to identify files of his non-MTPL clients so that they could be excluded from the material to be shared with the Department. A Board Resolution of MTPL dated Sep 29, 2025, recorded that the Petitioner, Mohit Bhandari and Bass Legal LLP were in possession of MTPL’s statutory, financial, accounting, tax, email and other material, and MTPL consented to its handover to the CGST authorities.
