Prosecuting Advocates For Professional Acts Means 'End Of The Bar': Allahabad HC Quashes Conspiracy FIR Against Lawyer

Sending a strong message, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena said that if advocates are prosecuted for performing a professional act, it would be the “end of the very existence of the Bar” as well as the right of an Advocate to practice under the Advocates Act.

The bench thus quashed an FIR and the subsequent chargesheet against petitioner-Samarpan Jain, an Advocate on Record before the HC. It also set aside the cognizance order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

Briefly put, Jain was engaged by his client (Mohd. Haris), the proprietor of M/s MH Enterprises, to file statutory appeals under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appeals challenged substantial tax, interest and penalty assessments levied by the Deputy Commissioner, GST, Sector-1, Rampur, across the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Acting on his client's instructions, Jain filed online statutory appeals on August 15, 2025, wherein he paid the mandatory 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax by utilising Input Tax Credit (ITC) from the assessee's Electronic Credit Ledger.

It was Jain's stance that utilising the client's ITC and electronic credit ledger for pre-deposit was permissible as per a Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which was even upheld by the Supreme Court.

However, the Appellate Authority refused to accept this form of statutory pre-deposit and dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability.

Following this, the informant (Deputy Commissioner of GST/respondent no.3) lodged the impugned FIR not only against the petitioner's client but also the petitioner for allegedly making a pre-deposit of 10% of the dispute tax out of the Electronic Credit Ledger by utilising Input Tax Credit.

In this specific case, the informant stated that this was an illegal course adopted by the petitioner's client in appealing his order.

The FIR also alleged that there was evasion of GST, committed by the petitioner's client in conspiracy with the petitioner, so as to cause financial loss to the State Exchequer. A police report followed, upon which cognizance was also taken by the concerned Court.

Challenging the entire proceedings in the said case, Petitioner-Jain moved the HC, contending that, in filing the appeal and making a tender of the requisite fee deposit for the disputed tax, he had acted in his "professional capacity" and did so to the best of his knowledge.

It was argued that even if the petitioner acted in error, he was acting in a "professional capacity" and there was nothing to show that he was a partner in his client's business and, therefore, a conspirator.

During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General, when confronted with this issue, had not much to say. Similarly, the informant-GST Officer also had no answer as to why he nominated the learned Advocate in the FIR for his professional act.

Taking grave exception to the prosecution of the applicant over his professional Act, the bench found the situation to be hitting at the roots of the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which, the bench said, cannot be permitted to happen.

"An Advocate, by his profession, is authorized to represent his client, who may have a case of any kind to be suited in a Court or defended. An Advocate, by his profession, is authorized to defend men charged with murders, rape, terror offences and it is his/her duty to defend them. If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an Advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an Advocate to practice under the Advocates Act", the bench remarked.

The Court added that an Advocate has to work fearlessly and discharge his professional duties, just as an officer of the State is entitled to discharge his duties.

The Bench noted that prosecuting lawyers would indirectly deprive citizens of their much-valued right to legal assistance, as a lawyer would be thinking about his own defense before filing a vakalatnama.

The Court remarked that even if the Deputy Commissioner of the GST thinks that predeposit of the disputed tax could not be debited to the Electronic Ledger out of the Input Tax Credit, the professional decision of the Advocate to do so does not, in any way, make him a conspirator with the assessee.

"It is purely a professional act and not at all something to do with his client's business. It was done in the course of filing an appeal and nothing more. It was based on a particular view of the law, whether right, CRLP No. 23443 of 2025 6 wrong or utterly wrong", the bench observed.

Consequently, the bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and set aside the cognizance order so far as it relates to the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Sushil Shukla, assisted by Advocate Sharad Sharma, appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by Additional Government Advocate Sadhna Singh, appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3

Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.