This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
As an Advocate-on-Record before the Supreme Court of India, with a deep understanding of procedural complexities and a strategic approach to complex tax disputes, what motivated you to pursue a career in law initially? How did your experiences at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab shape your journey?
Like many first-generation lawyers, my journey into law began more by chance or perhaps, more accurately, by a process of elimination. In school, I took Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics with the intention of joining the defence forces, particularly the Air Force. However, due to imperfect eyesight, that option was ruled out. The next conventional choice at the time was engineering, but I was certain that it was not for me. Around that time, a family friend who was studying at GNLU introduced me to CLAT. I found the course material interesting and developed an instant liking for law. At that stage, there was no deep-seated motivation but just a practical decision that I had to pursue something meaningful.
My time at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, turned out to be an enriching experience. Coming from a small town with a near Hindi-medium schooling background, adjusting to law school, where extroversion is often applauded, was challenging at first. But RGNUL had an intellectually stimulating environment that instilled in me the desire to work on myself. More importantly, I had an amazing group of friends who, in their own ways, taught me valuable lessons. All of this collectively fostered my analytical skills and deepened my appreciation for the law.
One of the most impactful moments of my time at RGNUL came during our convocation, which was chaired by Justice T.S. Thakur. One of my dearest friend received three gold medals, and just like that scene in “3 Idiots”, I found myself feeling a mix of happiness for my friend and regret for not achieving the same. Then, Justice Thakur delivered a speech that, to this day, remains with me. He acknowledged that while some students had won gold medals, many had not but that did not determine success in the legal profession. He emphasized that success in law comes from following the Five Ps: Patience, Perseverance, Persistence, Passion, and Practice. It felt as if he was speaking directly to me.
That moment reinforced something I have carried throughout my career. While my initial decision to study law was incidental, my time at RGNUL cemented my passion for the field and gave me the clarity to pursue litigation. Looking back, I can say with confidence that law, whether by chance or choice, turned out to be the right path for me.
During the early stages of your career as an Associate, what key experiences stood out that deepened your legal understanding and influenced your decision to specialize in tax disputes?
My interest in tax law started during my internship at a tax litigation firm. Tax litigation has a unique mix; it allows you to work on complex corporate matters while also experiencing the thrill of courtroom advocacy. That combination intrigued me and ultimately led me to choose tax as my area of practice.
During the early years of my career as an Associate, I had my fair share of lessons, some humbling and others eye-opening. One incident, in particular, stands out. I was working on a case where I advised a client purely from memory. I have always had a strong recall, and in my overconfidence, assumed I knew the provision perfectly. I overlooked the fact that tax laws change frequently. The client later pointed out an amendment that completely changed the position I had advised on. It was a moment of realization that no matter how confident you are, never rely on memory alone. That experience taught me the importance of always verifying the law rather than depending on recollection. From that day on, I made it a habit to double-check and stay updated.
I was fortunate to start my career under the guidance of Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai and Mr. Puneet Agarwala, both of whom have been incredible mentors. Their approach toward juniors is something I try to imbibe today. They never raised their voices or scolded but always guided with firm yet encouraging clarity. One of the most valuable lessons they taught me was to always stay updated on the law, no matter how busy the day gets. Even today, my mornings begin with reading legal updates because I learned early that in tax law, staying current is non-negotiable.
Another crucial lesson I learnt was that litigation is unpredictable. You can never be too certain about what will happen in court. Early on, like many young lawyers, I sometimes assumed that a matter would be adjourned and did not prepare as thoroughly as I should have. That assumption was short-lived when, in one of my cases, I almost got a dismissal order. My senior gave me an advice that has stayed with me: “Deepak, always come to court as prepared as if you are arguing Keshavananda Bharati. So that when you ARE arguing a matter that big, you are ready.” That advice changed my mindset. From that day forward, I never walked into a courtroom unprepared, no matter how small or routine the case seemed.
I remember another incident where my senior asked me to find a judgment on a potential question that might be raised by the judge. The request came late at night, and like any junior, I was frustrated about the timing and wondered why I was working on hypothetical scenarios. Still, I burned the midnight oil and managed to find the answer. The next day in court, the very first question the judge asked was the one my senior had anticipated. Because we had the answer ready, we moved past it smoothly. That experience taught me two things: (1) litigation, at times, is like war. Be a good soldier and follow the command of your seniors, and (2) some things come only with experience. Stay humble and keep working.
Looking back, those early years were filled with invaluable lessons; some learned the hard way, others through the wisdom of my mentors. I learned that confidence must always be backed by diligence, that preparation is non-negotiable, and that every case, no matter how minor, deserves serious effort. While I entered tax litigation because of its unique mix of corporate and courtroom work, I stayed because of the intellectual challenge, the unpredictability, and the sheer excitement of the practice.
Having cleared the AOR exam on your first attempt, what challenges did you face during your preparation, and how has earning the AOR title impacted your practice and professional growth?
When preparing for the AOR exam, the biggest challenge is time management. Most advocates taking this exam are full-time practitioners, managing court appearances, client meetings, and drafting work daily. Finding the time to sit down and study consistently is easier said than done.
In my view, the AOR exam does not fall into the category of being extremely difficult. The concepts are straightforward, but the real challenge lies in the sheer volume of material that needs to be covered. The questions are not the kind that one encounters in daily practice, so prior experience alone is not enough. There are no shortcuts. You have to go through the prescribed material, cover to cover.
Another challenge is structuring answers effectively. The questions in the AOR exam are often lengthy, yet the time to answer them is limited. In litigation, we are used to explaining arguments in detail, but in this exam, brevity is the key. Answers need to be crisp, precise, and well-structured, striking a balance between conciseness and completeness.
But perhaps the most underrated challenge is ‘writing’ the exam itself. We have become so accustomed to typing on laptops and dictating drafts that writing for hours at a stretch feels almost unnatural. The AOR exam requires handwritten answers, and I remember struggling with writing speed and endurance. I even had to practice writing answers just to get my hand used to it again.
Clearing the AOR exam was a significant milestone. It wasn’t just about earning the title but because of the journey. The process of preparing for it deepened my understanding of procedural law and reinforced the importance of consistency. It has allowed me to take greater responsibility in Supreme Court matters and strengthened my credibility as a litigator. The efforts it took to clear the exam was worth it, and the experience has helped me grow in the profession.
Given the demanding nature of your profession, what methods do you employ to unwind and strike a healthy balance between your professional duties and personal interests?
The practice of law, especially in the field of tax litigation, is undoubtedly demanding. My work takes me to the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals, often involving travel to different cities. The long hours and unpredictable schedules can be exhausting, but I genuinely love what I do. At the same time, I also recognize that longevity in this profession comes from accepting that you are not a machine. Law as a profession requires your undivided attention. No human being can be attentive all the time and if you are burnt out, in a way you are doing disservice to your client. So, learning when to pause and step back is much needed, which is of course easier said than done in our profession.
Work-life balance is highly subjective. For me, unwinding is not about carving out large chunks of time. It varies from reading to watching a movie or playing on PlayStation or simply just relaxing with the family. Recently, it has been my two-year-old son who eagerly waits for me to come home and play with him. Those moments are priceless, and no matter how hectic the day has been, I make sure to come back home and play with him. Also, the travel, though often work-related, also becomes an opportunity to explore new places, even if just briefly, which helps in breaking the monotony.
What are some of the most common tax-related challenges that businesses and entities typically encounter, and what proactive strategies or best practices can they implement to minimize or avoid these issues?
In my experience I have seen that: department rarely accepts a tax position without questioning it. In most cases, the authorities argue that the company has suppressed facts, misrepresented details, or acted fraudulently, even when the issue is merely a difference in interpretation. This often turns a straightforward tax position into a protracted legal battle.
At the same time, I’ve also seen companies take tax positions that are legally untenable by relying on interpretations that have already been rejected by courts or positions that are directly contrary to statutory provisions. What’s surprising is that many of these decisions stem from well-meaning but flawed sources such as random internet searches, AI-driven answers, or informal advice from non-experts. While technology has made information more accessible, it has also made misinformation more widespread. A company’s tax strategy should never be based on a ChatGPT response or a Google search alone as it needs professional scrutiny.
To minimize these challenges, businesses should adopt a proactive approach. Some examples would be:
- Regular tax reviews and audits: Companies should periodically review their tax positions with professionals to ensure compliance with evolving laws and precedents. Instead of relying solely on online sources, businesses should consult experienced tax advisors who can provide tailored, legally sound guidance.
- Document everything: A well-documented tax position, backed by legal provisions, case laws, and expert opinions, strengthens a company’s defense in case of a dispute. Further, intimate the tax position to the Department so that they cannot allege suppression of facts.
- Stay updated on legal developments: Tax laws are constantly evolving, and staying informed through professional updates, industry discussions, and expert opinions is crucial.
Tax disputes are inevitable in business, but a well-informed, strategic approach can significantly reduce litigation risks and ensure compliance while optimizing tax positions effectively.
With the continuous evolution of tax regulations, how do you see the future of tax law shaping up? What advice would you offer to aspiring lawyers interested in tax litigation, and could you recommend any resources to help them stay updated on the latest developments in the field?
Tax law is evolving rapidly, and while the Government is making an effort to create business-friendly policies and curb unnecessary litigation, anyone who has dealt with the tax department knows that tax disputes are far from over. The tax department, by its very nature, is litigation driven. No matter how much simplification is introduced, the nature of taxation itself ensures that litigation will always be a part of the system.
For anyone looking to build a career in tax litigation, one thing is non-negotiable i.e. you must stay updated. Tax law is not static. It is shaped by frequent amendments, evolving judicial interpretations, and shifting departmental positions. The best way to develop expertise in GST or indirect taxes is to go back to the roots by reading landmark judgments under Excise, Service Tax, VAT, and CST. Many of the key issues under GST today are not entirely new and have their roots in Excise, Service Tax, VAT, and CST because GST is essentially a conglomerate of these laws. A strong foundation in these older tax regimes will give a deeper understanding of GST and help in tackling complex issues that arise today. Understanding how courts ruled on classification disputes, valuation issues, and input tax credits under the old tax laws will provide a strong foundation for handling similar issues under GST.
For staying updated, there are plenty of sources available online such as Taxscan, Taxsutra, and GSTSutra provide daily updates, case summaries, and expert opinions. It can be overwhelming as the updates are repetitive; to avoid that one can opt for GSTR journals as it captures the most relevant cases and amendments.
Get in touch with Deepak Thackur –
