Advocate Filing Client's GST Appeal in Professional Capacity is not Criminal Conspirator: Allahabad HC Quashes Tax Officer's FIR [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court recently affirmed that an advocate who files a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal on behalf of their client does so in professional capacity, and that such an act cannot be leveraged to label them a conspirator in criminal proceedings against their client.

The High Court accordingly quashed the First Information Report (FIR), charge-sheet and cognizance order.

The petitioner, Samarpan Jain is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and practises in indirect taxes, direct taxes and corporate laws. His client, one Mohd. Haris, proprietor of M/s M H Enterprises, Rampur, had been subjected to assessment orders under Section 74 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Deputy Commissioner, GST, Sector-1, Rampur, with demands aggregating to several crores raised towards tax, interest and penalty across the financial years 2021-22 to 2023-24.

Acting on his client's instructions, the petitioner filed two statutory appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 and made the requisite pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax by utilising the Electronic Credit Ledger through Input Tax Credit. The Appellate Authority however dismissed the appeals, holding that pre-deposit through ITC from the Electronic Credit Ledger was not an acceptable tender.

Rather than pursuing recovery from the client who was alleged to have committed tax discrepancies, the Deputy Commissioner Sandesh Kumar Jain lodged an FIR with the jurisdiction Police under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, naming the petitioner-Advocate alongside his client, alleging conspiracy to evade GST.

The Allahabad High Court granted interim protection and summoned the Deputy Commissioner in person. In the meanwhile, the police swiftly cleared a charge-sheet and secured a cognizance order from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur - all of which happened on the same day, May 14, 2026.

Senior Advocate Sushil Shukla appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner -advocate had acted purely in his professional capacity while filing the appeal and making the pre-deposit, abiding by the law set down by Superior Courts. He further submitted that even if the petitioner had acted in error, an erroneous professional act in the course of filing an appeal does not make an Advocate a conspirator with his client, and that it would be a perilous proposition to hold otherwise.

The Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that the impugned FIR violated all known principles of criminal liability.

The Court observed that an Advocate is professionally authorised to represent clients who have been charged with murders, rape, terror offences and it is his/her duty to defend them.

Holding an Advocate to be criminally liable for a professional act such as preferring an appeal would signal the very end of the Bar and the right of an Advocate to practise under the Advocates Act, indirectly depriving citizens of their right to legal assistance under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Regarding the utilisation of ITC from the Electronic Credit Ledger for pre-deposit, the Court held that regardless of whether the Advocate's decision to adopt that course was right, or wrong, it could not make him a conspirator in his client's business.

Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed the FIR dated October 4, 2025, the charge-sheet and the cognizance order dated May 14, 2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur, in so far as they related to the petitioner.

The Court further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to cause an entry to be made in red ink in the General Diary of Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur recording the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates