2025 (8) TMI 311 - HC - GST

Search and seizure of advocate's office limited by attorney-client privilege under GST rules, requires prima facie material

Puneet Batra Versus Union Of India & Ors.

The HC held that the search and seizure of the CPU and documents at the advocate's office was subject to scrutiny due to attorney-client privilege ... Search and seizure of the Central Processing Unit (the CPU) and other documents for being illegal - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts of the case, this Court would like to be, first satisfied as to in what manner a search and seizure was conducted at the office of an Advocate, inasmuch as any documents that may have been given by the client to his lawyer are purely confidential in nature and are protected by attorney-client privilege. 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. Let the GST Department file an affidavit placing its stand by the next date of hearing - List on 4th August, 2025. ISSUES: Whether the GST Department is empowered to conduct search and seizure at the office of an Advocate and seize documents and electronic devices belonging to the Advocate.Whether documents and electronic devices seized from an Advocate's office are protected by attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.Whether the Advocate can be subjected to search and seizure absent prima facie material indicating personal involvement in alleged illegality beyond mere representation of a client.Whether the GST Department can access or download data from electronic devices seized from an Advocate's office without the presence of the Advocate or his authorized representative. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The GST Department is not automatically empowered to seize documents and electronic devices from an Advocate's office without demonstrating prima facie material that the Advocate is personally involved in alleged illegality beyond mere client representation.Documents given by a client to his Advocate are 'purely confidential in nature' and protected by attorney-client privilege, thereby restricting the GST Department's power to seize or examine such materials.The Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment through search and seizure unless the GST Department shows some prima facie material indicating the Advocate's personal complicity in the alleged offence.The seized CPU, potentially containing information of other clients, shall not be opened or have its contents downloaded by the GST Department without the presence of the Advocate or his authorized representative. RATIONALE: The Court applied the principle of attorney-client privilege which protects confidential communications and documents shared between a lawyer and his client from disclosure or seizure by authorities.The Court emphasized the need for prima facie material to justify search and seizure against an Advocate personally, to prevent harassment and protect professional confidentiality.The Court directed the GST Department to file an affidavit clarifying the basis and manner of the search and seizure, reflecting a procedural safeguard and judicial oversight in such sensitive matters.By restraining the GST Department from opening or downloading data from the seized CPU without the Advocate's presence, the Court ensured protection of potentially privileged information of multiple clients, maintaining confidentiality and due process.