‘End of Bar’: Why Allahabad High Court stepped in to save GST lawyer facing jail for defending his client

“An Advocate, by his profession, is authorised 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 court said on May 21.

Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena were hearing a plea of an advocate.

The order 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.

‘It is purely a professional act’

• After a careful consideration of the matter, what we find is that the FIR, lodged in this case, which has led to the police report and the order of cognizance, violates all known principles of criminal liability.
• An Advocate, by his profession, is authorised to represent his client, who may have a case of any kind to be suited in a Court or defended.
• It would, indirectly also, deprive the citizens of their right to the much valued right to legal assistance, because a person who practices the profession of law before defending his client, would be thinking about his own defence, which he would be thinking about, before he files a vakalatnama and takes steps on behalf of his client.
• This kind of situation, which hits at the roots of the principles enshrined
  under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, cannot be permitted to happen.
• Even if the Deputy Commissioner of the GST thinks that the 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, wrong, or utterly wrong.

Background

The petitioner, Samarpan Jain, advocate on record before the Allahabad High Court, where he practices and specialises in indirect taxes, direct taxes, and corporate laws. He was engaged by a client to challenge GST assessment orders totalling several crores. Acting on his client’s instruction, Jain filed online statutory appeals on August 15, 2025.

The controversy arose regarding the pre-deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax, a requirement for filing such appeals. Jain utilised the client’s ITC and electronic credit ledger for his payment, a procedure he argued was legally permissible under specific CBIC circulars and supported by a division bench judgement of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Yasho Industries Ltd v Union of India and another
judgment that was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Union of India and another v Yasho Industries Ltd.

However, the State Goods and Services Tax Department objected to this method of pre-deposit. This led to the registration of FIR in October, 2025. The advocate faces the charges under several Sections, including 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 318 (4) (cheating), 336(3) (forgery), 338 (forgery of valuable security), and 340 (2) (using forged document as genuine).

Following this, the charge sheet was filed, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, took cognisance of the offenses on May 14.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Shushil Shukla submitted that the petitioner, in filing the appeal and making a tender of the requisite fee deposit of disputed tax, acted in his “professional capacity” and did so to the best of his knowledge, going by the laws of the land, as declared by the Superior Courts of the Country.