Advocates cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy based on professional advice or procedural actions taken for clients.

The petitioner is a practicing Advocate specializing in taxation and a registered Advocate on Record.

He was engaged by a client, Mohd. Haris (proprietor of M/s M H Enterprises), to file statutory appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act against tax assessment orders.

Acting on professional instructions and interpreting a Gujarat High Court precedent (M/s Yasho Industries), the petitioner filed online appeals and made the mandatory 10% pre-deposit utilizing the client's Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The GST Department rejected this method of pre-deposit as invalid.

Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of GST filed an FIR against both the client and the petitioner (the Advocate), alleging a criminal conspiracy to cause financial loss to the State.

Following the FIR, a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 14.05.2026.

1. Whether an Advocate can be held criminally liable for conspiracy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for performing a professional act, such as filing a legal appeal based on an interpretation of law.

2. Whether the filing of an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against an Advocate for their professional conduct violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principles of professional immunity and criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Advocates Act.

It emphasized the constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 regarding the right to legal assistance and the right of an Advocate to practice law fearlessly.

The Court also referenced the interpretation of Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and the permissibility of ITC utilization for pre-deposits as discussed in Union of India v. Yasho Industries Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1526).

The Court reasoned that an Advocate is legally authorized to represent and defend clients, even those charged with serious offenses.

Holding an attorney liable for conspiracy simply for preferring an appeal or adopting a specific legal strategy would destroy the independence of the Bar and the citizen's right to legal counsel.

The Court noted that the petitioner acted in a "professional capacity" based on his understanding of the law and precedents.

Even if the GST Department disagreed with the method of pre-deposit, such an act is purely professional and does not constitute a "conspiracy" in the client's business or tax evasion.

The Court observed that the prompt filing of the charge-sheet and the Magistrate’s cognizance on the same day suggested an improper rush to prosecute.

The Court concluded that the proceedings violated all known principles of criminal liability as there was no evidence of a criminal nexus beyond the advocate-client relationship.

The Court quashed the FIR dated 04.10.2025, the Charge-sheet No. 30 of 2026, and the cognizance order dated 14.05.2026 insofar as they related to the petitioner.

The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, to record the quashing of proceedings in red ink in the General Diary of the concerned Police Station.

The petition was allowed with directions for immediate communication to relevant authorities.