In a significant ruling on the scope of legal professional privilege and statutory search powers, the High Court of Delhi, comprising a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain, held that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against an investigation into an advocate’s personal involvement in alleged offences. The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging a search conducted by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities at his law firm premises and the consequent seizure of his computer Central Processing Unit (CPU) and documents, ruling that the search was carried out pursuant to a valid statutory authorization under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Puneet Batra, an advocate handling direct and indirect taxation matters, operated from a cabin inside the office of M/s Bass Legal LLP at DLF Galleria Mall, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi—a firm constituted by his father, wherein the petitioner had previously been a partner. Beginning in June 2023, the petitioner was engaged to provide professional legal and compliance services to M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL), a gaming entity operating under the domain name winner11.com.
According to the petitioner, MTPL independently took over its compliances from October 2023. Following a GST search at MTPL’s registered office on September 4 and 5, 2024, the petitioner withdrew his vakalatnama on September 6, 2024, citing non-responsiveness from the client’s officials. Subsequently, multiple summonses were issued to him between September 2024 and June 2025, and he tendered his statements before the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East.
The dispute culminated on July 25, 2025, when CGST officers, armed with an authorization dated July 24, 2025, searched the premises of Bass Legal LLP. During the search, officers recovered MTPL-related documents, partnership records, and seized the CPU from the petitioner’s cabin in his absence under Panchnama and Form GST INS-02. Challenging the search authorization, the panchnama, the seizure of the CPU, and the summons issued to him, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that searching a lawyer’s office and seizing electronic storage carrying confidential third-party client communications breached advocate-client privilege.
Through interim orders dated July 28, September 9, and November 13, 2025, the High Court had restrained coercive action, prohibited unmonitored examination of the CPU, and appointed senior IT officials of the High Court as Local Commissioners to oversee the forensic cloning and parsing of the drive at the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), Ministry of Home Affairs Lab, while strictly filtering out third-party data.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel contended that the search of an advocate’s cabin was unauthorized, unconstitutional, and directly infringed legal professional privilege. It was submitted that the authorities lacked “reasons to believe” under Section 67 of the CGST Act, failed to comply with departmental instructions, the CBIC Master Circular dated March 10, 2017, and the CBI Manual guidelines on seizing digital evidence. The petitioner also objected to the GST Department placing investigative materials in a sealed cover, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Ors., and argued that the authorities shifted their stance by earlier naming another person as the mastermind while later targeting the petitioner without issuing any Show Cause Notice (SCN) to MTPL.
Opposing the petition, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the department was investigating a massive offshore online gambling tax evasion network involving winner11.com, where payments collected from Indian users were routed through domestic entities like MTPL to camouflage the transactions. MTPL had allegedly received approximately Rs. 1,306 crores, attracting 28% GST amounting to Rs. 365.68 crores.
The GST authorities asserted that the petitioner was not acting merely as an advocate rendering legal services, but was deeply embedded in MTPL’s operations as a conduit and beneficiary, allegedly receiving a 0.7% profit cut on every rupee deposited. The department argued that Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) does not confer immunity upon an advocate who is an active participant in an illegality. Furthermore, the authorities highlighted that MTPL’s Board of Directors had passed a resolution on September 29, 2025, expressly waiving privilege and consenting to the handing over of all its records. The department also alleged that the petitioner had remotely accessed and deleted files from the computer while the search was underway.
The Court’s Analysis
Addressing the primary issue regarding the legality of the search, the High Court observed that the search was executed pursuant to a valid authorization issued under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act for the premises of Bass Legal LLP. Examining the layout, the Court noted that the petitioner’s cabin sat directly within the premises of the firm and carried an identical address. The Bench observed that the sufficiency of reasons recorded by the competent authority is to be evaluated at the threshold stage of investigation rather than as a final determination of guilt, and held that the presence of an advocate’s cabin inside the authorized premises did not render the search unauthorized.
Turning to the core question of professional privilege under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court made foundational observations regarding the nature and beneficiaries of such protection:
“The protection of advocate-client privilege is intended to preserve the confidentiality of communications made in the course of the professional relationship between an Advocate and his client. The privilege, however, attaches to the nature of the communication or material and the circumstances in which it came into existence. It does not follow merely from the fact that the material is found in the office or possession of an Advocate.”
The Bench underscored that the privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer:
“It is also necessary to bear in mind that the privilege contemplated under Section 132 of the BSA is, in substance, a privilege conferred for the protection of the client and not a personal privilege of the Advocate.”
The Court emphasized that professional privilege cannot shield a lawyer’s personal conduct:
“There can be no dispute that communications and material protected by advocate-client privilege are entitled to the protection recognised in law. However, such privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against an investigation into the conduct of the Advocate himself, where the Respondents have placed prima facie material indicating that the Petitioner may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser and may have been involved in the affairs under investigation.”
Regarding the petitioner’s admission that files were remotely deleted while the search was underway, the Court observed that while remote deletion does not establish guilt per se, it constitutes a relevant circumstance that the investigating agency is entitled to examine. The Court also noted that MTPL’s Board Resolution dated September 29, 2025, formally recorded consent to place all its records before the GST authorities, meaning the client itself had waived privilege.
On the challenge to the sealed cover procedure, the Bench distinguished Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, pointing out that the material here comprised ongoing investigative records, witness statements, and case progress. Citing the Supreme Court decisions in Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. and Sidharth, Etc. Etc v. State of Bihar, along with principles reflected in Section 192(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 130 of the BSA, the Court held that investigative materials cannot be disclosed to a person under investigation as a matter of course when disclosure may impede the probe.
The Court dismissed the arguments regarding the absence of a Show Cause Notice and the alleged change of stance, noting that an SCN belongs to an adjudicatory stage, while an investigation is dynamic and may reveal multiple participants as it advances. The Court further held that administrative circulars cannot curtail statutory search powers conferred by Section 67 of the CGST Act.
The Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and closed all pending applications, finding no statutory infirmity in the search authorization or the seizure. The Court vacated its interim orders, permitting the GST authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, subject strictly to the forensic safeguards formulated during the proceedings.
Directing that the authorities confine their examination exclusively to the cloned data relevant to MTPL, the Court ordered that the department shall not open, access, or examine any unrelated data belonging to other clients of the petitioner.
Finally, the Court sounded an express note of caution to ensure the ruling is not misapplied:
“Nothing contained in this judgment shall, therefore, be understood as permitting an unrestricted search of an Advocate’s premises or as diluting the protection available to genuinely privileged communications and confidential client material in accordance with law.”
An oral prayer made by Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeking a one-week stay of the operation of the judgment was declined by the Bench.
Case Title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025, CM APPL. 45387/2025, CM APPL. 56648/2025, CM APPL. 68661/2025, CM APPL. 79226/2025 and CM APPL. 58787/2026
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain
Date: September 18, 2026
