In a significant decision that reinforces the confidentiality of tax-related information, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has ruled that details from Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, except in narrowly defined exceptions. This judgment underscores the tension between transparency and privacy in fiscal matters, prioritizing the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) as the overriding special law. The case, decided just a week ago, serves as a cautionary note for RTI applicants seeking third-party tax data without substantial backing.
Case Overview: Adarsh Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra
Writ Petition No. 11135 of 2025 Coram: Justice Arun R. Pedneker Date of Judgment: October 14, 2025 Parties:
- Petitioner: Adarsh s/o Gautam Pimpare (represented by Adv. Maniyar Irfan D.)
- Respondents: State of Maharashtra (through its Secretary, General Administration Department), Assistant State Tax Commissioner (Latur), and Deputy State Tax Commissioner (Latur) (represented by M.N. Ghanekar)
The petitioner, Adarsh Pimpare, approached the court challenging three administrative orders that denied his RTI request for GST submission details of six local industries in Udgir, Latur district, spanning financial years 2008 to 2023. These industries—Vyankateshwara Mahila Audyogik Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Aniket Trading Company, Mayureshwar Trading Company, New Prasad Products and Agencies, Kalyani Trading, and Prasad Industries—were accused by Pimpare of manipulating documents to secure government tenders, allegedly defrauding public funds.
Pimpare's RTI application, filed on February 13, 2023, with the Assistant State Tax Commissioner (acting as Public Information Officer or PIO), was rejected after the industries objected following mandatory notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act. His first appeal (March 31, 2023) and second appeal to the State Information Commissioner (December 30, 2024) met the same fate, prompting the writ petition.
Key Facts and Petitioner's Grievance
Pimpare argued that the industries, operating under Maharashtra State Government contracts, had filed improper GST returns to clinch tenders worth public money. He positioned his request not as a fishing expedition but as a tool to expose "large-scale fraud." Crucially, he contended:
"GST returns are public documents and not a secret information that is not to be disclosed. It is also not a third party information given under Section 11 of the RTI Act."
He claimed disclosure would harm no one and serve the greater good by uncovering misuse of taxpayer funds.
The industries, however, viewed the request as harassment, noting some had even shut down operations amid repeated queries. They invoked confidentiality, arguing the data was protected and irrelevant to unsubstantiated claims.
Legal Provisions at the Heart of the Dispute
The court's analysis hinged on a clash between two statutes:
- RTI Act, 2005: Promotes transparency but carves out exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) for personal information invading privacy, unless "larger public interest" warrants disclosure (proviso). Section 11 mandates notices to third parties for their input on potential harm.
- GST Act, 2017: Section 158(1) explicitly bars GST authorities from disclosing "any particulars contained in any application, declaration, return, or statement" filed under the Act, save for exceptions in sub-section (3) (e.g., court orders, prosecutions, or departmental inquiries).
The court applied the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant—a special law (GST Act, enacted later in 2017) trumps a general one (RTI Act, 2005).
Court's Reasoning: A Three-Pronged Analysis
Justice Pedneker dismantled the petitioner's case methodically:
- Mandatory Section 11 Notices Under RTI:
Drawing from the Supreme Court's landmark Constitution Bench ruling in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, the court affirmed that third-party GST data must be treated as confidential prima facie. Notices were not just procedural niceties but a constitutional safeguard. As the apex court observed:
"Where disclosure of third party information is sought, such information must prima facie be treated as confidential by the third party and the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act must be mandatorily followed. Section 8 and 11 must be read together." Pimpare's objection to the notices was overruled—the PIO acted correctly.
- GST Act's Confidentiality Overrides RTI:
Section 158(1) creates an ironclad shield:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the particulars contained in any application, declaration, return or statement made under this Act... shall not be disclosed." The court held this prohibition absolute unless sub-section (3) applies (none did here). The GST Act's specificity and recency render RTI disclosures impermissible: "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."
- No Larger Public Interest Justified Disclosure:
Pimpare's fraud allegations were dismissed as "bald" and evidence-free, failing the threshold from Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013) 1 SCC 212. Without "prima facie evidence," the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) RTI couldn't be invoked. The industries' harassment claims further tilted against disclosure. The court noted:
"In the instant case, the Petitioner has applied for the information contending that there is a large scale fraud... The allegation is bald in nature. There is no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud."
Operative Order and Implications
The writ petition was dismissed, with the rule discharged. No costs were imposed, preserving the balance between access and protection.
This ruling has broad ramifications for RTI seekers targeting tax records:
- For Applicants: Bare allegations won't suffice; credible evidence of public interest is essential to pierce confidentiality veils.
- For Authorities: Section 11 notices remain non-negotiable for third-party fiscal data, harmonizing RTI with sectoral laws like the GST Act.
- Broader Policy: It bolsters taxpayer privacy, deterring vexatious queries while reminding that transparency isn't absolute. Future cases may test sub-section 158(3)'s boundaries, especially in corruption probes.
Comments
Post a Comment
If you have any doubts, Please let me know