The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) upheld the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, which had denied access to GST return details of six private firms sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and clarified that the GST Act, 2017, being a special enactment, overrides the RTI Act, a general law.
The Court ruled that GST returns furnished under Section 158(1) cannot be disclosed by the authorities except as provided in sub-section (3). Essentially, the disclosure of GST returns is barred under Section 158(1) of the GST Act, which prohibits dissemination of particulars contained in tax statements and returns, except as provided under sub-section (3).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun R. Pednekar observed that when Section 158(1) of the GST Act expressly prohibits disclosure of GST data, the RTI Act cannot override such explicit statutory confidentiality. The Bench interpreted Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and Section 158 of the GST Act, to reiterate that while the RTI Act seeks to minimize information asymmetry between citizens and the State, the Parliament consciously incorporated exceptions under Section 8 to safeguard privacy, confidentiality, and fiduciary interests.
Accordingly, the Bench emphasized that GST filings, being business-sensitive documents filed by individual entities, are third-party information that prima facie fall within the ambit of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which talks of commercial confidence, as well as Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which talks about personal information.
The Bench explained that the petitioner has applied for the information contending that that there is a large-scale fraud and that he needs the information to prosecute the industries. However, the allegation is bald in nature, as there was no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud.
Since the Authorities under the RTI Act have not provided information of GST returns of the industries as there is no larger public interest involved in the matter, the Bench concluded that no case is made out under proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to grant information.
Briefly, the petitioner, a resident of Latur district, filed an RTI application seeking details of GST returns filed between 2008 and 2023 by six industrial firms, alleging that these firms while working under the Maharashtra State Government had obtained tenders from the State Government by manipulating documents and by not submitting the GST, they had committed huge fraud of the public money.
Accordingly, the Public Information Officer (PIO) issued notices to all six firms under Section 11 of the RTI Act, seeking disclosure, which was objected contending that the GST records are confidential data. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, which was dismissed, holding that consent of the third-party firms was necessary. This was also upheld by the State Information Commission. In vain, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking transparency envisioned by the RTI Act.
Case Relied On:
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – (2020) 5 SCC 481
Appearances:
Advocate Maniyar Irfan D., for the Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Advocate M.N. Ghanekar, for the Respondent/ Revenue
