Adarsh Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in Adarsh vs. State of Maharashtra, concerning a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking disclosure of GST returns filed by six industries in Udgir, Latur district, from financial years 2008 to 2023. The petitioner, Adarsh, filed the application on 13 February 2023 with the Assistant State Tax Commissioner (Jan Mahiti Adhikari) under the RTI Act, 2005. The six entities whose GST data was sought were: 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.
Upon receipt of the RTI application, the Information Officer (Respondent No.2) issued notices to the concerned industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act, giving them an opportunity to object to the disclosure. All six firms objected to providing the information, resulting in the rejection of the petitioner’s request. The petitioner challenged this decision via a first appeal under Section 19(1) before the First Appellate Officer (Deputy State Tax Commissioner), which was also dismissed for the same reason—the firms withheld consent to disclose third-party information. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) before the State Information Commissioner, Ch. Sambhajinagar, which was dismissed on 30 December 2024. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the orders at all three levels.
The petitioner contended that the GST returns are public documents filed with a government authority and do not contain personal information of individuals. He argued that the authorities were not required to seek consent from the industries before providing such information, especially as the purpose of the request was to expose alleged large-scale fraud in government tenders. The petitioner asserted that the information sought is of public interest and the refusal to provide it was illegal.
The court first addressed the issue of whether Section 11 notices issued to the industries were proper. Section 11 of the RTI Act mandates that when information concerning a third party is sought, the Information Officer must issue notice to the third party and consider their objections before disclosure. The Bombay High Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, which held that disclosure of third-party information must follow Section 11 procedures. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 11 is to safeguard confidential information provided by third parties to public authorities, allowing them an opportunity to object before the information is released. The Court concluded that the issuance of notices under Section 11 was mandatory and properly done, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the GST returns should have been provided without third-party notice.
The Court then considered the applicability of Section 158 of the GST Act, 2017, which prohibits disclosure of particulars in any return, statement, or account filed under the GST regime, except under specified conditions in subsection (3). Section 158(1) explicitly bars the GST authorities from sharing GST returns with third parties, reflecting a special statutory regime overriding general disclosure obligations under the RTI Act. The Court held that the GST Act being a later and specific legislation, prevails over the general provisions of the RTI Act. Consequently, the GST authorities could not provide the requested information under the RTI framework.
The petitioner further argued that disclosure was justified under the “larger public interest” proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which allows disclosure of personal information if it serves the public interest. The petitioner alleged that the industries had manipulated documents and defrauded public funds through government tenders. However, the Court noted that the petitioner provided no prima facie evidence supporting these allegations. The court observed that Section 8(1)(j) provides a qualified exemption: information relating to personal or confidential matters may only be disclosed if the public interest outweighs potential harm. In this case, since the petitioner’s allegations were bald and unsubstantiated, the larger public interest criterion was not satisfied.
After examining the submissions, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Assistant State Tax Commissioner, the First Appellate Officer, and the State Information Commissioner. The court reiterated that GST returns of third parties constitute confidential information under Section 158 of the GST Act and Section 11 of the RTI Act mandates notice to third parties before any disclosure. Additionally, the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) was inapplicable as there was no demonstrable public interest justifying disclosure. The court emphasized that compliance with statutory protections for third-party information is essential to maintain confidentiality and the integrity of the GST system.
Judicial Precedents Referenced:
