Isabella Mariam

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, Single Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker, has dismissed a writ petition seeking disclosure of Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns of six private firms under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court held that the information sought was protected from disclosure under Section 158 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it constituted personal and confidential third-party information.

The petitioner 35-year-old resident of Udgir, filed an application under the RTI Act on 13 February 2023 before the Assistant State Tax Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) seeking details of GST submissions from 2008 to 2023 of six industries located in Udgir, Latur district. These firms were identified as M/s. Vyankateshwara Mahila Audyogik Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, M/s. Aniket Trading Company, M/s. Mayureshwar Trading Company, M/s. New Prasad Products and Agencies, M/s. Kalyani Trading, and M/s. Prasad Industries.

Also Read: Supreme Court Permits Limited Sale and Use of Green Crackers in NCR for Diwali: Festive Traditions Cannot Override Public Health and Environmental Protection

Following the application, the Information Officer issued notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act to the concerned industries, inviting their response. The industries objected to the disclosure of their GST returns, citing confidentiality. Subsequently, the Information Officer rejected the petitioner's request. The petitioner appealed to the First Appellate Officer under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, who upheld the decision, stating that the firms had denied consent for disclosure. A second appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, was also dismissed on 30 December 2024. Challenging these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner contended that GST returns are public documents and not personal or confidential information. It was argued that the Information Officer erred by issuing notices to the firms, as the information was not protected under any exemption. The petitioner alleged that the firms had obtained government tenders through manipulation and evaded GST payments, resulting in public loss, and that access to the GST records was necessary to substantiate the alleged fraud.

The respondents, represented by the Assistant State Tax Commissioner and the Deputy State Tax Commissioner, argued that the information sought fell under third-party confidential information, disclosure of which was restricted by law. They submitted that Section 158 of the GST Act explicitly prohibited sharing such details, except under specific circumstances outlined in the Act.

The Court referred extensively to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [(2020) 5 SCC 481], noting that in cases where personal information is sought, the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act must be followed.

The Court observed that "where the information sought is personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the procedure under Section 11 must be complied with before a final order is passed and the third party concerned is required to be issued notice and heard." It further stated that "third party information relates to or has been supplied by any other person (including a public authority) other than the information applicant and has to be treated as confidential by such third party."

The judgment elaborated that Sections 8 and 11 must be read together and that "the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 permits disclosure where the public interest in disclosure outweighs any possible harm in disclosure highlighted by the third party." However, in the present case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest.

Citing the Supreme Court, the Court recorded that "the Parliament was cognizant that an unrestricted disclosure of information could be fiscally inefficient and infringe the rights of others." It reiterated that under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, disclosure is exempted when it could harm the competitive position of a third party unless public interest justifies it.

Addressing the petitioner's contention that GST returns were public documents, the Court observed that the returns are held by GST authorities as third-party information. "When such information is asked, the authorities constituted have to issue notice under Section 11 to the affected person as this provision is held to be mandatory," the judgment stated. The Court held that the Information Officer’s decision to notify the industries was legally correct.

On the question of whether Section 158 of the GST Act barred disclosure under the RTI Act, the Court noted that the provision expressly prohibits the release of particulars contained in any statement, return, or account filed under the GST Act, except under limited exceptions provided in sub-section (3) of the same section.

Quoting directly from the provision, the Court stated that “all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act… shall, save as provided in sub-section (3), not be disclosed.” The Court stated that the GST Act, being a special and subsequent legislation, overrides the general provisions of the RTI Act, thereby barring disclosure of GST-related information.

Justice Pedneker noted that Section 158(1) specifically prohibits disclosure of GST returns, and only under the circumstances enumerated in sub-section (3)—such as for criminal prosecution, audit, or actions involving governmental functions—can such information be lawfully shared. Since the petitioner’s request did not fall within these exceptions, the bar under Section 158 applied fully.

Also Read: Receiver Assigned to Liquidate Assets of Dissolved Partnership Not Employer Under Industrial Law: Bombay High Court

The Court further recorded that “the GST Act being a special enactment and a later enactment would override the RTI Act (general enactment) and the information which is prohibited to be provided under Section 158 of the GST Act cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.”

On the petitioner’s allegation of large-scale fraud, the Court found the claim to be unsubstantiated, noting that there was “no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large-scale fraud.” The Court also referred to the industries’ response, which stated that they had closed operations due to alleged harassment by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court found no basis to invoke the “larger public interest” exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Court stated that “in view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged.” No costs were awarded.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Maniyar Irfan D., Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, Advocate.

Case Title: Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:29042-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11135 of 2025

Bench: Justice Arun R. Pedneker