Why GST Returns Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI: Detailed Analysis of the Bombay High Court’s Ruling

In Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Aurangabad Bench held that GST return data is confidential and cannot be shared under the Right to Information Act unless the case fits the narrow exceptions in Section 158(3) of the GST Act or the requester demonstrates a larger public interest that justifies disclosure.

Background of the Case

Adarsh Pimpare, the petitioner, had filed an RTI application on 13 February 2023 seeking details of GST submissions made by six industries in Udgir, Latur district, for the years 2008 to 2023. He claimed that the information was needed to expose alleged irregularities in how these industries obtained government tenders and filed GST returns.

The Assistant State Tax Commissioner, acting as the Public Information Officer (PIO), issued notices to these industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which allows third parties to be informed when information relating to them is requested. All six industries objected to the disclosure, and the PIO rejected the request. The petitioner’s first and second appeals were also rejected, leading him to approach the Bombay High Court.

Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! Click here

Arguments

The petitioner’s representative, Adv. Maniyar Irfan D., argued that GST returns are public documents and should be accessible to citizens as a matter of transparency. The counsel further claimed that the PIO should not have issued notices to the industries before providing the data.

The respondents’ representative, M.N. Ghanekar, replied that the information sought was third-party information protected under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act and that Section 158(1) of the GST Act expressly forbids disclosure of GST particulars except in the limited situations listed in Section 158(3).

What the Court decided

Justice Arun R. Pedneker dismissed the writ petition and upheld the authorities’ refusal to disclose the GST returns. The Court made three important findings.

First, the PIO had acted correctly by issuing notices to the concerned firms under Section 11 of the RTI Act, as the request sought third-party information. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 and observed:

“Where disclosure of third party information is sought, such information must be prima facie 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.”

Second, the Court examined Section 158(1) of the GST Act, which prohibits disclosure of GST returns and related particulars except as provided in Section 158(3). It explained that the GST Act, being a special and later enactment, overrides the general provisions of the RTI Act. The judgment states:

“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.”

Third, the Court found that the petitioner’s allegations of large-scale fraud were bald and unsupported by material evidence. The Court explained that there was no larger public interest demonstrated to justify disclosure of third-party GST data. It observed:

“The allegation is bald in nature. There is no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud… Based on the reply the Authorities have not provided information of GST returns of the Industries as there is no larger public interest involved in the matter.”

The court dismissed the petition, stating that no case was made out under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for granting information.

The role of “larger public interest”

A recurring argument in RTI cases is that public interest should override privacy or confidentiality. However, courts have consistently required that such claims be substantiated with credible evidence. In this case, the petitioner merely alleged corruption without presenting any supporting material. The High Court observed that such vague claims do not satisfy the standard of larger public interest necessary to override statutory confidentiality.

This position is consistent with other judgments, such as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013) 1 SCC 212, where the Supreme Court held that personal information of third parties cannot be disclosed under RTI unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.

How the RTI and GST laws work together

The RTI Act is designed to promote transparency, but it also recognizes the need to protect sensitive and confidential information. The GST Act, on the other hand, focuses on the confidentiality of taxpayer data. When both laws intersect, the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applies meaning that a special law overrides a general one.

The High Court applied this principle to conclude that Section 158 of the GST Act, being a special and later provision, prevails over the general provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, any request for GST returns must first pass the confidentiality bar set by Section 158 before even being considered under RTI.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Adarsh Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra offers a clear and practical interpretation of the balance between transparency and confidentiality. The RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information but that right is not absolute. Unless a case fits within the exceptions listed in Section 158(3) of the GST Act or involves a clear and compelling public interest, such information cannot be disclosed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates