Delhi High Court raps GST Dept over raid on advocate in a gaming case
The High Court observed that any documents submitted to an advocate by a client are confidential and protected under attorney-client privilege.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a case that raises questions about the sanctity of attorney-client privilege and the limits of investigative authority, the Delhi High Court on Monday sought a detailed response from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department on a search and seizure operation conducted at the office of advocate Puneet Batra.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain heard the matter through hybrid mode and issued directions to the GST Department to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances and justification behind the raid and seizure. The matter will next be heard on August 4, 2025.
The writ petition was urgently mentioned and listed on the same day after the GST Department’s Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, carried out a search at Batra’s office located in DLF Galleria Mall, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Extension, on July 25. The operation resulted in the seizure of a Central Processing Unit (CPU) containing 1250 GB of data, along with various documents — some of which reportedly pertain to Batra’s clients, including Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd., a gaming company.
According to the petition, Batra — a practicing advocate and a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association — had been offering legal and professional services to Martkarma since 2023. These services included GST filings, income tax returns, intellectual property registrations, and representation in cybercrime and other legal matters.
The controversy stems from an earlier GST Department search at Martkarma’s premises in September 2024, following which Batra and his team withdrew their legal representation from the company. Nevertheless, Batra received multiple summonses between September 2024 and June 2025 from the Anti-Evasion Branch.
The latest summon, served on July 25 — the same day as the search — required Batra’s appearance before the GST authorities that afternoon. This led him to immediately approach the High Court, challenging the legality of the search and seizure, particularly the confiscation of his office CPU and confidential documents.
Represented by Senior Advocates Kirti Uppal and Avi Singh, Batra contended that he was being targeted solely for representing a client and that the documents and electronic devices seized include privileged materials related to other clients as well.
The High Court observed that any documents submitted to an advocate by a client are confidential and protected under attorney-client privilege. It further stated that an advocate cannot be harassed unless there is prima facie evidence showing the advocate’s personal involvement in the alleged illegal activity.
“Let the GST Department file an affidavit placing its stand by the next date of hearing,” the Court directed. It also ordered that the seized CPU not be opened or its data accessed without Batra or his authorized representative being present.
The Court granted interim relief to the petitioner by postponing his appearance in response to the July 25 summons until further orders.
The case highlights the growing tension between investigative agencies and legal professionals regarding the scope of search powers and the protection of professional confidences. The GST Department has been given until August 4 to explain the rationale and legality behind its actions.
