IN THE judgement of the case- Puneet Batra v. Union of India and others, delivered on September 18, 2026, Justice Anil Kshetrapal and (Ms) Justice Shail Jain at the Delhi High Court, have held that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner establish any statutory infirmity in the authorisation or search or the seizure of the CPU and documents is illegal or void ab initio. The HC has found no ground to interfere with the search conducted on July 25, 2025 or the seizure of the documents and electronic devices pursuant thereto, including the cabin being used by the petitioner, and the consequential seizure of the CPU and other documents. The petitioner has also challenged the panchnama drawn and summons issued to him on the same date.

 

The petitioner-Advocate, has challenged the search conducted by the respondents on July 25, 2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that search of the cabin and the seizure of his CPU was unauthorised and contrary to the protection available to the communication between an Advocate and his client. It is further contended that the respondents could not have accessed or seized the electronic data available on the petitioner’s computer, particularly, when the same was likely to contain privileged and confidential information pertaining not only to M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) but also to other clients of the petitioner. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the search was duly authorised on sufficient reason to believe and that the material gathered during investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely acting as an Advocate for MTPL, but was himself involved in the affairs and operations of MTPL.

 

It is their case that the protection of Advocate-client privilege cannot be invoked so as to prevent investigation into the personal involvement of an Advocate in the activities under investigation. The question, which, therefore, arose for consideration is whether the search conducted on July 25, 2025 at the premises of Baas Legal, including the cabin used by the petitioner, and the consequent seizure of the CPU and other material, can be held to unauthorised or illegal on the ground that the petitioner is an Advocate and the material seized may contain communications protected by advocate-client privileged material. The further questions arising for consideration were: (I) Whether the certain material before this Court in a sealed cover is impermissible; (ii)Whether the absence of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) against MTPL affects the legality of the search on the summons issued to the petitioner; (iii) Whether the respondents have changed their stand during the course of investigation; (iv) Whether the alleged non-compliance with the departmental instructions and Master Circular on SCN. Adjudication and Recovery of March 10, 2017 vitiated the search; and (v) Whether the authorisation for search was issued after recording the requisite reasons to believe. MTPL is stated to have engaged the petitioner for professional services in the field of taxation and corporate compliances from June, 2023 onwards. The objection that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing before the CPU was seized also cannot, by itself render the seizure illegal. The CPU was seized during the course of a search authorised under section 67 of the CGST Act.

 

The subsequent proceedings before this Court have, in any event, ensured that the CPU is not accessed in an uncontrolled manner and that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect confidential and privileged material. It is also relevant that when the matter reached the stage of rebuttal, this Court offered the petitioner an opportunity to identify the files pertaining to his clients other than MTPL, so that the same could be secured and excluded from the material to be made available to the respondent department. The said offer was however, declined by the petitioner. The protection afforded to third-party client data has thus, remained an important consideration throughout the proceedings, and the safeguards directed by this Court nave been framed keeping the same in view. In view of this the Court’s finding is that the search of the premises of Bass Legal, including the cabin used by the petitioner, was carried out pursuant to a valid authorisation issued under section 67(2) of the CGST Act and cannot be held to be unauthorised merely because the petitioner is an Advocate.

 

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 beyondthe role of a legal adviser and mayhave been involved in the affairsunder investigation. This court is, at this stage, not called upon toreturn any final finding as to therole of the petitioner. The question is only whether the search andseizure could be undertaken onthe basis of the material availableto the respondents, subject toappropriate safeguards in respect of privileged and confidential material. At the same time, the protection available to confidential communications and databelonging to the persons unconnected with the investigation hasto be maintained. The safeguardsalready directed by this Court inrespect of examination of the CPUand identification of data sufficiently address this concern.

 

It isalso relevant that the petitioner has admitted that certain fileswere deleted remotely while thesearch was underway. This circumstance, by itself, cannot be treated as establishing anywrongdoing on the part of the petitioner While summing up, the HC stated that it has found no ground tointerfere with the search conducted on July 25, 2025 or theseizure of the documents and electronic devices pursuant thereto. The HC has dismissed the petition and the pending applications. The Delhi High Court has clarified that this judgement may not be construed as laying down anygeneral proposition that the status of an Advocate, or the professional relationship between anAdvocate and his client does not attract the protection of advocateclient privilege.

 

The protectionaccorded to such confidential communications remain animportant safeguard in the administration of justice. Striking a note of caution, theHC has clarified that nothing contained in this judgement shall, therefore, be understood, as permitting an unrestricted search of an Advocate’s premises or as diluting the protection available togenuinely privileged communications and confidential client material in accordance with law.