Stories
Supreme Court Stays GST Search on Advocate Computers Over Privilege Concerns
- •The Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court verdict that upheld the GST Department's seizure of advocate Puneet Batra's office computers.
- •The case highlights the tension between investigative powers and advocate-client privilege, risking the exposure of confidential data belonging to other clients.
- •The Bombay High Court ruled that an Assessing Officer's failure to pass an Order Giving Effect within the prescribed statutory period renders assessment proceedings and penalties legally unsustainable.
- •The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai held that agreement termination compensation received without damaging the capital structure constitutes business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act.
Key Questions Answered
On September 28, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court's September 18 verdict which had upheld the GST Department's search and seizure of advocate Puneet Batra's office computers. The core issue involves protecting confidential information belonging to other clients given the lack of a Chinese wall.
The Bombay High Court held that an Assessing Officer's failure to pass an Order Giving Effect within the prescribed statutory period under Section 153 results in the abatement of the assessment proceedings and renders any consequential penalty legally unsustainable.
The Bombay bench of the ITAT ruled that compensation received for terminating a routine commercial agreement without damaging the capital structure or core profit-making apparatus constitutes business income as a revenue receipt under Section 28.
