Aditya Bhattachrya is a Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, specialising in taxation and general commercial disputes. With over 15 years of experience, he has appeared in more than 300 reported cases across various High Courts and regularly represents clients before the Supreme Court, CESTAT, NCLT and NCLAT. He has been recognised as a ‘Future Star’ by Benchmark Litigation and a ‘Recommended Lawyer’ by Legal500.
We had the opportunity to ask him the following questions about his professional journey and experience.
You have over 15 years of experience in tax and commercial litigation and 300+ reported cases across High Courts. What has been the most defining aspect of your journey so far?
My transition from practising exclusively as a tax lawyer to also handling commercial litigation has been a significant and defining aspect of my professional journey. Although I began my career primarily in tax litigation, over time, the disputes I handled began to involve contractual and regulatory issues, and my practice gradually expanded into the commercial space. Today, I handle both tax and commercial matters, and the experience gained in each area has broadened my perspective and refined my overall approach to litigation.
You’ve been recognised as a ‘Future Star’ by Benchmark Litigation and a ‘Recommended Lawyer’ by Legal500. What do these recognitions mean to you professionally?
I am grateful to have received these recognitions. At the same time, I firmly believe that there is always more to learn and improve upon. While such recognitions are encouraging, they also come with a greater sense of responsibility. They remind me to work harder and consistently strive to improve the quality of my work and professional standards.
Your practice spans appearances before the Supreme Court, High Courts, CESTAT, NCLT, and NCLAT. How has appearing across multiple forums shaped your litigation approach?
Appearing before multiple forums has had a significant impact on my approach to litigation. Each Court and Tribunal operates within its own institutional framework and procedural discipline, and understanding these differences is essential. Every forum has its own way of analysing and approaching issues. Adapting to these varied judicial perspectives and ideologies has, over time, shaped my thinking and strengthened my ability to present matters in a manner best suited to the forum.
You have worked with several Fortune 500 companies across sectors like IT, telecom, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing. What do leading corporations look for in their tax counsel today?
Leading corporations today expect their tax counsel to go beyond handling litigation alone. The role carries the onus of advising not only on issues of litigation but also on compliance, risk assessment, and structuring decisions in a legally sustainable manner. In my experience, large organisations look for clarity, commercial understanding, and practical solutions. They expect their counsel to anticipate issues, assess exposure realistically, and provide advice that aligns with both the law and business objectives.
Commodity classification disputes are a specialised area within taxation. What initially drew you to this niche?
Commodity classification disputes became an area of keen interest for me during the early years of my practice. I appeared along with V. Lakshmikumaran for several years before the Supreme Court of India in commodity classification matters.Â
His insight and distinctive way of thinking drew me towards this area and encouraged me to pursue commodity classification more seriously as a specialised field. In later years, I also had the opportunity to brief Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate, in landmark classification cases such as Parle Agro and Hamdard. Working on these matters further shaped my understanding of classification law and strengthened my interest in this niche area of taxation.
With tax laws constantly evolving, how do you stay ahead and ensure clients receive practical and commercially sound advice?
There is no sure-shot formula for staying ahead in a constantly evolving tax landscape, except to read consistently and remain updated. Staying updated is only one part of it; equally important is understanding how these developments affect businesses in practical terms. Regularly going through judgments, statutory amendments, circulars, and policy changes is essential. Over time, this discipline becomes a habit rather than a conscious effort.
What, in your view, differentiates a good tax litigator from a great one?
In my view, a good tax litigator has a strong command of the statute and is thorough with the facts. However, what differentiates a great tax litigator is the ability to go beyond the bare provision and understand the purpose, context, and commercial impact of the issues involved. Consistency in preparation, attention to detail, and the ability to anticipate make a significant difference. Ultimately, it is a combination of sound legal understanding, practical insight, and disciplined advocacy that sets one apart.
Many of your cases are reported and cited. How does handling precedent-setting matters influence the way you prepare your arguments?
When a matter has the potential to become a precedent, the responsibility is naturally higher. It requires a deeper level of preparation, not only on the immediate issue involved but also on the wider legal and commercial implications that the ruling may have. In such cases, I ensure that the statutory framework, legislative history, and existing case law are examined thoroughly, and the arguments are structured with greater care, as they may guide future litigation.
From your experience, how has tax litigation in India evolved over the last decade in terms of judicial approach and regulatory scrutiny?
Tax litigation in India, in many ways, reflects the economic trajectory of the country. The nature of disputes has evolved alongside shifts in the economy and regulatory scrutiny. If you see the Indian landscape, when the thrust was on manufacturing, there was a significant surge in Excise cases centred around questions of valuation and classification.Â
Similarly, when India’s service sector expanded, the volume and complexity of Service Tax disputes increased correspondingly. Thereafter, with the introduction of GST, the landscape has again shifted, bringing in issues relating to input tax credit, place of supply, and so on and so forth.Â
Looking ahead, what areas of tax or commercial litigation do you believe will gain greater importance in the coming years?
Looking ahead, I believe that tax and commercial litigation will continue to evolve in line with economic and regulatory developments. From the tax perspective, GST litigation is still at a relatively evolving stage, with several foundational issues yet to attain finality.Â
Similarly, on the commercial side, insolvency-related litigation, regulatory disputes, and matters involving complex contractual arrangements are likely to gain further importance. As businesses become increasingly digital and globally integrated, the intersection between tax and commercial laws is likely to become even more significant in the coming years.
