Delhi High Court slams GST Department for raiding a lawyer’s office, stating an advocate cannot be subjected to harassment over a client’s tax case without prima facie evidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has strongly criticized the GST Department for targeting a tax lawyer in connection with his client’s alleged GST evasion. The Court emphasized that a legal representative cannot be treated as an accused merely for performing their professional duties unless substantial material links them to the alleged offence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. Puneet Batra, is a practicing advocate and a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Sales Tax Bar Association, and the New Delhi Bar Association (Patiala House). He handles diverse legal domains, including direct and indirect taxation, criminal law, cyber law, and education-related litigation.
Mr. Batra has been rendering professional services to a gaming company, Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., since 2023. His services included GST filings, ROC-related work, IPR registration, and cybercrime legal support. The work was carried out through a tax consulting firm, M/s Bass Legal LLP, managed by his parents, with Mr. Batra representing clients on behalf of the firm.
Important Events:
The events leading to the writ petition began with a search conducted by the GST Department at the registered office of Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. on 4th and 5th September 2024.
Mr. Puneet Batra, who was representing the company in over 100 legal matters, subsequently received a series of summons from the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, starting from 23rd September 2024.
Although he cited professional commitments and submitted written responses for some dates of non-appearance, Mr. Batra eventually appeared and gave his statement on 27th June 2025.
However, on 25th July 2025, the GST Department conducted a search at his own office, during which they seized his Central Processing Unit (CPU) containing 1250 GB of data, along with various documents, including the firm’s Partnership Deed and confidential client files.
This prompted Mr. Batra to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the search and seizure action.
Arguments Presented by Mr. Batra
Mr. Batra contended that:
- He was merely representing the client in various legal matters.
- The documents and CPU seized by the Department contained privileged material, including information related to other clients.
- There was no prima facie evidence suggesting his involvement in the client’s alleged GST evasion.
High Court’s Observations and Ruling
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain took a strong stand against the overreach by the GST Department. The Court remarked:
“The 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. For the said purpose, some prima facie material would have to be shown by the GST Department.”
The Bench made it clear that the legal profession must be respected, and advocates must be allowed to discharge their duties without intimidation or unlawful interference by investigative authorities.
Appearance:
Petitioner:
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Avi Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Bhandari,
Mr. Bikash Chandra Pandey
Mr. S.P. Kamrah, Advs.
Respondent:
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Siddharth Saxena, Ms. Arya Suresh & Ms. Shreya Lamba
CASE TITLE: PUNEET BATRA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
W.P.(C) 11021/2025, CM APPL. 45387/2025 & CM APPL. 45388/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On the GST Department
