Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), through Justice Arun R. Pedneker, dismissed a writ petition challenging concurrent orders of the Assistant State Tax Commissioner, Deputy State Tax Commissioner, and 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).
The Court upheld the authorities’ refusal, holding that the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act)—being a special and later enactment—overrides the RTI Act, a general law. It ruled that 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).
Justice Pedneker emphatically stated:
“GST returns furnished under Section 158(1) cannot be disclosed by the authorities except as provided in sub-section (3). The GST Act, being a special enactment, overrides the general provisions of the RTI Act.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.
Facts
The petitioner, a resident of Latur district, filed an RTI application on 13 February 2023 seeking details of GST returns filed between 2008 and 2023 by six industrial entities located in Udgir. These firms—engaged in trading and manufacturing—were alleged to have defrauded the State exchequer by manipulating tender documents and evading GST payments.
The Public Information Officer (PIO) issued notices to all six entities under Section 11 of the RTI Act, seeking their response. All firms objected to the disclosure, claiming that their GST records were confidential. Consequently, the PIO rejected the application.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, holding that consent of the third-party firms was necessary and had been refused. The petitioner then approached the State Information Commission, which also dismissed his second appeal on 30 December 2024, upholding the earlier orders.
The petitioner thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, challenging all three orders as being contrary to the spirit of transparency envisioned by the RTI Act.
Issues
- Whether the PIO erred in issuing notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act to third-party industries before denying the information.
- Whether GST returns constitute “third-party information” exempted under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
- Whether Section 158 of the GST Act bars disclosure of such information despite the RTI framework.
- Whether allegations of public fraud justify disclosure under the “public interest” exception contained in the RTI Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that GST returns are public documents and their disclosure cannot be restricted under Section 8 of the RTI Act. He asserted that the PIO acted illegally in issuing notices to private firms under Section 11, as such consent was unnecessary where information pertains to public revenue.
He contended that the six firms had obtained State tenders fraudulently and evaded tax payments, resulting in misuse of public funds. According to him, access to their GST data was necessary to expose corruption, and withholding such information was against public interest.
He submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information, was inapplicable because GST filings relate to commercial entities, not individuals. He further argued that the State Information Commission had failed to appreciate that the right to information promotes transparency in governance, and that no fiduciary or confidentiality clause existed to bar disclosure of GST returns.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the Assistant and Deputy State Tax Commissioners, contended that GST filings are confidential commercial documents and qualify as third-party information under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Disclosure, it was argued, would harm the competitive position of these entities and violate Section 158(1) of the GST Act.
They further asserted that the GST Act, being a special legislation enacted later in time, prevails over the RTI Act in case of conflict. As per Section 158, all particulars furnished in returns or accounts “shall not be disclosed,” except in circumstances listed in sub-section (3), such as criminal prosecution or proceedings before competent authorities.
The respondents maintained that the petitioner’s allegations of fraud were unsupported by any prima facie evidence and hence did not invoke the “public interest override” under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act.
Analysis of the Law
The Court undertook a detailed interpretation of Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and Section 158 of the GST Act, reading them harmoniously to determine legislative intent.
Justice Pedneker relied extensively on the Constitution Bench judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, which clarified that Sections 8 and 11 must be read together to ensure third parties are heard before disclosure of confidential information.
The Court reiterated 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.
Applying these principles, the Court held 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) (commercial confidence) and Section 8(1)(j) (personal information).
It further noted that Section 158(1) of the GST Act expressly prohibits disclosure of GST data, except under the exceptions carved out in sub-section (3), such as criminal or audit proceedings. Thus, the RTI Act cannot override such explicit statutory confidentiality.
Precedent Analysis
- Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 — The Constitution Bench clarified that Section 11 notice to third parties is mandatory when requested information involves confidentiality. The Court cited this to uphold the PIO’s issuance of notices before rejecting disclosure.
- Interpretation of Sections 8 and 11 (RTI Act) — The Court explained that Section 8(1)(d) shields commercial secrets and Section 8(1)(j) protects personal privacy. These are not absolute exemptions but qualified ones, permitting disclosure only when public interest outweighs harm.
- Doctrine of Special Law Prevailing Over General Law — Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court held that the GST Act (special law) overrides the RTI Act (general law) regarding information disclosure restrictions.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Pedneker reasoned that while transparency is a constitutional value, unfettered access to confidential business data would infringe the rights of private entities and undermine fiscal governance. The RTI Act’s purpose is not absolute disclosure, but responsible transparency balanced against privacy and commercial integrity.
He observed that the petitioner’s allegations of fraud were unsupported by evidence, and therefore the public interest test under Section 8(2) was not met. The GST returns, though filed with a public authority, remain third-party information that cannot be disclosed without following statutory safeguards under Section 11.
Importantly, the Court held that the statutory bar under Section 158 of the GST Act makes such information non-disclosable, except under specific lawful circumstances such as audit, prosecution, or investigation. Since the petitioner’s request did not fall within any of these categories, disclosure was impermissible.
“The GST Act being a special enactment and a later enactment would override the RTI Act (general enactment), and the information prohibited under Section 158 cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.”
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that:
- The PIO correctly issued notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
- GST return details constitute third-party information protected by Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j).
- Section 158 of the GST Act expressly bars disclosure, and hence the RTI request was lawfully rejected.
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate larger public interest sufficient to override the confidentiality provisions.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and all connected orders affirmed.
Implications
This judgment clarifies the hierarchical relationship between the GST Act and the RTI Act, reinforcing that fiscal data confidentiality under special tax legislation takes precedence over general transparency obligations.
It safeguards sensitive business information and prevents misuse of the RTI framework for fishing expeditions or harassment of private entities. However, it also signals that disclosure may still be permitted where credible evidence of public fraud or corruption is produced, satisfying the public interest override.
The decision thus establishes a balanced precedent — protecting commercial privacy while preserving the public’s right to know in cases of demonstrable malfeasance.
