The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the search of an advocate’s cabin within a law firm’s premises under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, holding that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where the respondents have placed prima facie material indicating that the advocate was involved in the affairs of the entity under investigation and was not merely rendering professional legal services. The ruling by Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain in W.P.(C) 7098/2026 (Rishiraj Singh Rathore — the Delhi HC case number as referenced in the file; the advocate’s identity relates to the substantive proceedings involving an offshore gambling investigation, decided 15.09.2026) provides the first detailed judicial analysis of the interplay between advocate-client privilege and GST search powers.
The investigation concerned Indian entities allegedly acting as conduits for offshore online gambling website winner11.com, routing approximately Rs. 1,306 crores in user payments with an estimated GST liability of Rs. 365.68 crores. The DGGI alleged that the petitioner-advocate was not merely representing the company (MTPL) but was embedded in its operations, had direct financial benefit (0.7% per deposit), had access to MTPL’s bank accounts and the Chinese gambling platform, generated invoices without supply of goods, and deleted files remotely during the search. The petitioner contended the search violated advocate-client privilege and the authorization did not specifically cover his cabin.
The court held: (a) the authorization to search the law firm’s premises validly covered the advocate’s cabin within those premises; (b) the reasons to believe recorded by the competent authority disclosed sufficient basis for the search; (c) advocate-client privilege is a privilege conferred for the protection of the client, not a personal privilege of the advocate — it protects confidential communications but does not immunise an advocate’s own conduct from investigation; (d) administrative instructions and circulars may regulate the manner of exercising search power but cannot curtail or extinguish a statutory power; (e) MTPL’s subsequent Board Resolution consenting to handover of material was noted but could not retrospectively validate the search. The court directed that the cloned copy of seized data be used for investigation, confined to material relevant to MTPL, with confidentiality of other clients’ data maintained. The judgment expressly clarified it should not be construed as laying down any general proposition diluting advocate-client privilege.
- 2026-juristway.com-2534-HC(Delhi)-GST | High Court of Delhi | W.P.(C) 7098/2026 | 15.09.2026