New Delhi: Delhi High Court has upheld a GST department search at the office of an advocate and the seizure of his computer and documents, noting that if prima facie material indicates involvement of a lawyer in the affairs under investigation, the client-advocate privilege can’t come in the way.“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,” a bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain noted.The court dismissed the lawyer’s plea challenging the search and seizure at his office, observing that the search was carried out after a valid authorisation under Section 67(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act and could not be treated as unauthorised merely because the premises belonged to an advocate.Directing the authorities to use the cloned copy of the seized data for further investigation and ensure that confidential information relating to other clients is not accessed, HC directed that, for further probe, the GST authorities shall examine the data but keep it confined to material relevant to the probe. However, the court clarified that if any specific material relating to another client subsequently becomes relevant to the investigation, the authorities could approach it.The lawyer had challenged a July 25, 2025, search conducted on his office premises, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents. The petitioner 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 authorities, however, maintained that material gathered during the investigation prima facie indicated that the petitioner was allegedly not merely a legal adviser but had a role in the affairs and operations of the company.HC clarified it was not recording any final finding regarding the lawyer’s role. The court also noted that the petitioner had admitted that certain files were deleted remotely during the search. It made it clear that this circumstance, by itself, could not be treated as establishing wrongdoing, though the authorities would be entitled to examine it.The court also clarified that the judgment did not lay down any general proposition permitting unrestricted searches of advocates’ premises or diluting advocate-client privilege.
