GST Dept Cannot Send Multiple Notices to Advocates for Client Info in Fraud Cases: Calcutta HC Explains Advocate-Client Privilege

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Tax Laws

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that the GST Department cannot issue multiple notices to advocates seeking client information in connection with GST fraud investigations. The court explained that such actions violate the principle of advocate-client privilege as protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The case arose when Himangshu Kumar Ray, a practicing advocate, challenged a series of notices issued to several lawyers by the GST and Anti-Fraud departments. These notices sought details of clients represented in tax matters, following an earlier order of a single judge directing authorities to investigate fake writ petitions that allegedly led to GST revenue loss.

Read More: Loans Qualify as NPAs After 180 Days of Default Under Income Tax Rules, Not 90 Days per NHB Guidelines: Supreme Court Rejects HUDCO’s RP [Read Judgement]

The petitioner, who was not a party to the original writ, argued that the blanket notices were illegal and infringed on the confidentiality between lawyers and their clients. The court took note of this concern and clarified that communications between an advocate and a client are privileged unless made to commit a crime or fraud.

GST Litigation Secrets – Winning Strategies from Real Cases! Click here

The bench comprising Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the notices had been issued in a standardized format without any specific reference to individual cases or allegations.

Read More: Bogus LTCG Addition u/s 68 Not Sustainable: ITAT Validates Demerger-Allotted Shares Transaction Citing Genuineness of Documentary Evidence [Read Order]

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, the court explained that legal privilege protects all communications made by a client to their lawyer in the course of legitimate representation. The court further stated that such privilege is not applicable only when the communication is intended to further a criminal act.

GST Litigation Secrets – Winning Strategies from Real Cases! Click here

The court further referred to the case of Bakaulla Mollah v. Debiruddin Mollah [(1911–1912) 16 CWN 742 (Cal)], wherein it was held that Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act expressly prohibits an attorney from disclosing any communication made between a client and their legal advisor without the express consent of the client.

Upon receiving proper legal advice from the State counsel, the notices previously issued to the advocates were withdrawn through emails dated 5th June, 2023. The appeal was disposed of.