Introduction:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the confidentiality of tax-related disclosures, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Arun Pednekar, held that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filed by a company cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court observed that Section 158(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) expressly prohibits disclosure of any information contained in statements, returns, or documents filed under the Act to third parties. Further, it noted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal or confidential information from being disclosed unless larger public interest justifies such disclosure. The Court was adjudicating a writ petition filed by Adarsh Gautam Pimpare challenging the decision of the State Information Commissioner, who upheld the denial of his RTI application seeking GST return details of six industries located in Udgir taluka, Latur district. The petitioner alleged that these industries had committed large-scale fraud by manipulating tenders and evading GST, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. However, the Court found that the allegations were unsupported by evidence and that disclosure of such confidential business information would violate statutory safeguards under the GST Act.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Adarsh Gautam Pimpare, contended that several industries operating within the jurisdiction of Udgir taluka in Latur district were involved in serious financial irregularities and fraudulent activities, particularly in relation to government tenders and GST compliance. According to him, the six industries—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—had manipulated documents to secure government tenders under the Maharashtra Government and subsequently defaulted in payment of GST liabilities. Pimpare filed an RTI application dated February 13, 2023, before the Assistant State Tax Commissioner seeking copies of GST returns and related details of these six industries from the financial year 2008 to 2023. He asserted that the information sought was crucial to uncover a major financial fraud involving misuse of public funds, and therefore disclosure was necessary in the larger public interest.
He further submitted that the authorities erred in seeking consent from the said industries before providing the information. According to Pimpare, the RTI Act does not require consent from the concerned parties when the information pertains to public activity or interest, and the alleged fraud in handling government contracts was undeniably a matter of public concern. He accused the Assistant State Tax Commissioner and the Deputy State Tax Commissioner of acting contrary to the spirit of transparency and accountability enshrined in the RTI Act. Pimpare argued that by invoking Section 158 of the GST Act, the authorities attempted to shield the defaulting firms from scrutiny. He emphasized that the RTI Act, being a tool for ensuring transparency and preventing corruption, should not be defeated by technical interpretations that serve to protect entities accused of misappropriating public money. Furthermore, he contended that Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that its provisions have an overriding effect over any inconsistent law, including the GST Act, and hence the authorities were duty-bound to disclose the information sought by him.
Pimpare argued that the authorities had wrongly concluded that there was no “larger public interest” involved in the matter. He insisted that the alleged evasion of GST and manipulation of tenders constituted a direct loss to the state revenue and hence affected the public at large. He alleged that the refusal to disclose the details effectively allowed fraudulent firms to operate with impunity, thereby undermining public trust in governance. He contended that the denial of information, without any investigation into the allegations, amounted to protecting corruption under the guise of confidentiality. Pimpare also maintained that his intention was not to harass the companies but to expose financial misconduct, and thus his petition deserved to be allowed.
Arguments of the Respondents:
Representing the State authorities, Advocate M.N. Ghanekar countered the petitioner’s arguments by asserting that the information sought under the RTI application was expressly protected under Section 158(1) of the GST Act. He submitted that this section prohibits disclosure of particulars contained in any statement, return, account, or document produced under the GST Act to any third party, except in specific circumstances mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 158. He further argued that GST data constitutes confidential commercial information, and allowing its disclosure to private individuals without substantiated evidence of wrongdoing would jeopardize business privacy and violate statutory mandates.
The respondents contended that the petitioner’s allegations of large-scale fraud were baseless, vague, and unsupported by any credible evidence. The mere assertion of wrongdoing does not justify breaching statutory confidentiality provisions. They pointed out that all six industries mentioned in the RTI application had filed objections against the disclosure of their GST returns, stating that such disclosure would violate their right to business privacy. Furthermore, it was revealed that some of these industries had ceased operations due to repeated harassment and false allegations made by the petitioner himself. The respondents maintained that the information sought by Pimpare was not related to any public authority or activity that would justify invoking the exception of public interest under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The State authorities further relied on the legal principle that when there is a conflict between two statutes—one being a general law and the other a special law—the provisions of the special law prevail. Since the GST Act is a later and more specific enactment governing taxation matters, its confidentiality provisions under Section 158 override the general provisions of the RTI Act. They cited judicial precedents affirming that tax returns and related filings are inherently confidential documents, and their disclosure could lead to misuse of sensitive financial information. The respondents therefore asserted that the decisions of the Assistant State Tax Commissioner, the Deputy State Tax Commissioner, and the State Information Commissioner were all legally sound and consistent with the statutory framework. They argued that the petitioner’s demand for disclosure amounted to an attempt to misuse the RTI mechanism for personal vendetta rather than serving any legitimate public interest.
Court’s Judgment:
After thoroughly examining the rival contentions, Justice Arun Pednekar upheld the decisions of the authorities and dismissed the petition. The Court began its reasoning by interpreting Section 158(1) of the GST Act, noting that it unequivocally restricts disclosure of information contained in GST returns, statements, or documents except as provided under sub-section (3). The judge observed that this statutory confidentiality applies to all particulars furnished in accordance with the Act, including those in any record of proceedings, unless such disclosure is permitted under the specific circumstances outlined by the statute. The Court emphasized that the GST Act, being a special and subsequent legislation, overrides the RTI Act, which is a general enactment. Hence, any information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 158 of the GST Act cannot be made available through the RTI route.
Justice Pednekar also analyzed Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal or confidential information from disclosure unless there exists a larger public interest. He noted that the petitioner’s claim of large-scale fraud was not substantiated by any prima facie evidence, and therefore the exemption clause under Section 8(1)(j) could not be overridden. The Court observed that while the RTI Act serves as a powerful instrument to ensure transparency in governance, it cannot be used as a means to invade the confidentiality of private entities, particularly when no credible proof of public interest or wrongdoing exists. The judge emphasized that the RTI mechanism should not be exploited to harass private businesses or demand disclosure of sensitive commercial data that falls outside the purview of public accountability.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s allegations were “bald in nature” and that there was no prima facie evidence suggesting that the six industries had indulged in large-scale fraud. On the contrary, some of the industries had indicated that they were forced to shut down due to persistent harassment by the petitioner. The Court found that the authorities had correctly determined that no larger public interest was involved to justify the disclosure of the requested information. Justice Pednekar reiterated that the confidentiality provisions under Section 158 of the GST Act serve an important legislative purpose—to protect sensitive business data from misuse and to maintain trust between taxpayers and the tax administration.
The Court further highlighted that Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives overriding effect to its provisions, does not automatically nullify specific confidentiality provisions enacted under special laws such as the GST Act. The legislative intent behind Section 158 is to strike a balance between transparency and the need to protect proprietary business information. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the authorities had acted well within their jurisdiction and in conformity with statutory provisions while denying the RTI application. The judge also found no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the process followed by the authorities.
In dismissing the petition, the Court held that unless a compelling public interest is established, private entities’ GST filings cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. The petitioner’s speculative claims of fraud, without documentary support, failed to meet the threshold required for invoking the public interest exception. The bench observed that indiscriminate disclosure of such sensitive information could undermine taxpayer confidence and adversely affect compliance under the GST regime. The Court thus upheld the sanctity of the confidentiality provisions and reaffirmed that transparency under the RTI Act cannot override statutory prohibitions expressly enacted to protect taxpayer information. With these findings, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.