The Supreme Court orally directed the GST Department not to take any coercive action against an advocate, including on a summons issued to him, until Monday, while adjourning his challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld a GST search and seizure at his law office.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has protected advocate Puneet Batra from any action by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department until Monday, September 28, orally directing the department not to act against him in the interim, while adjourning to that date the hearing of his petition challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld a search and seizure conducted at his office and law firm [Puneet Batra v. Union of India].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was to take up the special leave petition (SLP), but posted it to Monday after observing that it had received the matter late and had not been able to go through the brief. This is an interim, pre-hearing development; the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
The interim protection
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Bench that the GST Department had issued a summons to the petitioner returnable on Monday. On being so apprised, Justice Datta directed the GST Department not to take any action against the petitioner till Monday.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the department, contended that the case was not one concerning a lawyer-client relationship, prompting Justice Datta to remark, “you know the facts, we don’t know.” When the ASG submitted that a lot of incriminating data was coming up in the investigation, the Bench observed, “just wait for the weekend, we will take it up on Monday,” and accordingly posted the matter to September 28, while orally directing that no action be taken against the petitioner till then. The department’s allegations are, at this stage, untested, and the petitioner is presumed innocent; the Court is yet to examine the rival contentions.
The High Court judgment under challenge
The petition arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain, which dismissed the advocate’s challenge to the search and seizure carried out at his office by the GST Department. The High Court held that the search had been conducted pursuant to a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which empowers a proper officer to search and seize where he has reasons to believe that goods, documents or things useful for proceedings under the Act are secreted.
Significantly, the High Court had held that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar to investigating a lawyer’s own conduct where the authorities place on record prima facie material suggesting that the lawyer may have stepped beyond the role of a legal adviser and become involved in the very affairs under investigation. It is that judgment, and the search it upheld, that the advocate has now challenged before the Supreme Court.
Why it matters
Though the Supreme Court has, for now, done no more than grant short interim protection and adjourn the matter, the case raises questions of considerable importance to the legal profession: the extent to which tax and investigating authorities may search a lawyer’s office and seize professional devices and records, and how that power interacts with the confidentiality that attaches to the lawyer-client relationship. Legal professional privilege, recognised in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly Section 126 of the Evidence Act), protects communications between a lawyer and client, and the sanctity of that privilege has been a recurring concern as agencies increasingly seek access to lawyers’ communications and devices.
The High Court’s view, that privilege is not an absolute shield where there is prima facie material that the lawyer himself may be implicated in the conduct under investigation, marks the contested boundary the Supreme Court will now examine: how to protect genuine privilege and the independence of the Bar, while ensuring that the privilege is not misused as a cloak where a lawyer is alleged to have crossed into wrongdoing. With the matter listed for Monday and the petitioner protected in the meantime, the Supreme Court’s eventual view is likely to be watched closely by the profession. Nothing has been decided on the legality of the search or on the allegations, which remain to be tested.
Case Title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India [Diary No. 59119/2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Status: Interim protection granted; matter listed for September 28, 2026