New Delhi [India], September 18 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has upheld a GST Department search at the office of an advocate and the seizure of his computer and documents, while directing the authorities to use the cloned copy of the seized data for further investigation and ensure that confidential information relating to the advocate’s other clients is not accessed.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain dismissed the writ petition challenging the search and seizure, holding that the search was carried out pursuant to a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and could not be treated as unauthorised merely because the premises belonged to an advocate.
The court directed that, for further investigation, the GST authorities shall make use of the cloned copy of the data prepared pursuant to the earlier orders of the court. The examination of the data shall be confined to material relevant to the investigation.
The authorities have specifically been directed not to open, access or examine data belonging to any other client of the advocate which is unrelated to the investigation. They have also been directed to ensure that the confidentiality of information and documents concerning such clients is not compromised.
However, the court clarified that if any specific material relating to another client subsequently becomes relevant to the investigation, the authorities would be at liberty to seek appropriate orders from the High Court.
The petition challenged the July 25, 2025 search conducted at the office premises, including the cabin used by the advocate, and the consequential seizure of his CPU and documents. The petitioner had contended that the computer could contain privileged and confidential communications relating to his clients and that such material was protected by advocate-client privilege.
The GST authorities, however, had maintained that material gathered during the investigation prima facie indicated that the petitioner was allegedly not merely acting as a legal adviser but had a role in the affairs and operations of the company under investigation.
The High Court said there could be no dispute that communications and material protected by advocate-client privilege are entitled to protection recognised in law. At the same time, it held that such privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar to an investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where the authorities have placed prima facie material indicating that he may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser.
The Bench, however, clarified that it was not returning any final finding regarding the petitioner’s role and that the issue before it was limited to whether the search and seizure could be undertaken on the basis of the material available with the authorities, subject to safeguards protecting privileged and confidential information.
The court also noted that the petitioner had admitted that certain files were deleted remotely while the search was underway. It made clear that this circumstance, by itself, could not be treated as establishing wrongdoing, though the authorities would be entitled to examine it during the course of their investigation.
The court had earlier imposed detailed safeguards for examination of the seized CPU. It had directed that the computer be accessed in the presence of the petitioner and his lawyers or forensic expert, along with senior officials of the Delhi High Court’s IT Department and a forensic expert representing the GST Department.
The entire hard drive was also ordered to be cloned and a copy supplied to the petitioner. Relevant files connected with the investigation were to be identified and supplied to the GST authorities, while the original CPU was to remain sealed and could not be accessed without further orders of the court.
The Bench observed that these safeguards had been put in place to balance the requirements of investigation with the protection available to privileged and confidential material.
The court further held that the fact that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before seizure of the CPU, by itself, did not render the seizure illegal, as the CPU had been seized during a search authorised under Section 67 of the CGST Act.
It also rejected the challenge based on alleged non-compliance with departmental instructions, observing that such procedural deviation, in the absence of a demonstrated violation of a mandatory statutory requirement affecting the validity of the authorisation or jurisdiction to conduct the search, would not by itself render the entire search illegal.
The court took note of a subsequent resolution of the concerned company consenting to the handover of its statutory, financial, accounting, tax, electronic and digital material to the GST authorities. The Bench clarified that this subsequent consent could not retrospectively validate the July 25, 2025 search, but was relevant to the present position concerning material belonging to that company.
At the same time, the court stressed that such consent did not authorise the authorities to examine unrelated third-party client data or dispense with the requirement of maintaining confidentiality of information belonging to other clients.
The Bench ultimately held that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner established any statutory infirmity in the search authorisation or the search itself.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were closed.
The interim orders were vacated, except to the extent of the safeguards and directions already issued regarding examination and use of data contained in the seized electronic devices and material. The GST authorities were permitted to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.
The court specifically clarified that the judgment does not lay down any general proposition permitting unrestricted searches of advocates’ premises or diluting advocate-client privilege. It said the protection available to genuinely privileged communications and confidential client material remains an important safeguard in the administration of justice.
The conclusion in the present case, the Bench said, was confined to its particular facts, where the material before the authorities indicated that the advocate’s own alleged role and conduct, and not merely confidential communications between an advocate and client, formed part of the subject matter of investigation. The Bench also declined a request seeking a one-week stay on the operation of its judgment. (ANI)
Related reading
