Puneet Batra Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
GST Department Cannot harass Advocate with search, unless personally involved in client’s illegality; HC stays summon
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 11021/2025 dated July 28, 2025] held that any search and seizure conducted at an advocate’s office must be justified by prima facie material showing the advocate’s involvement in alleged illegality, and attorney-client privilege must be respected. The Court Held the GST Department not to open or access the seized CPU without the Petitioner or his representative present.
Also Read: HC permits GST officials to examine CPU of Advocate with conditions
Facts:
Puneet Batra (“the Petitioner”) is an advocate and member of several bar associations, practicing in diverse areas including tax, cyber law, and criminal law.
Union of India & Others (“the Respondent”) through the GST Department conducted a search at the Petitioner’s office and seized documents and Central Processing Unit (“the CPU”).
The Petitioner argued that he was merely representing a client, M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., and had withdrawn representation after September 6, 2024. He claimed that the search and seizure at his office violated attorney-client privilege and his rights as an advocate.
