DISCLOSURE OF GST RETURNS FILED BY TAX PAYERS UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 – PERMISSIBLE?

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short), is a landmark Indian law empowering citizens to demand information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in governance by providing access to government records, documents, and data. It allows citizens to inspect work, take notes/copies, and get samples, fostering citizen engagement and fighting corruption, with provisions for appeals and penalties for non-compliance. 

Whether the returns and other information filed by a tax payer under GST laws can be disclosed to any person under the Right to Information Act, 2005?  The Bombay High Court gave answer to this question in Adarsh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner Latur., First Appellate Officer/Deputy State Tax Commissioner Latur. - 2025 (10) TMI 794 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 

In the above said case the petitioner filed an application to the Assistant State Tax Commissioner under the Act seeking information in respect of submission of GST returns from the financial year 2008 to 2023 in respect of 6 different industries.  On this, the Assistant Tax Commissioner, who is the Information Officer issued notices to the respective industries seeking to furnish the required information as sought in the application.  The industries objected to furnish the information required by the petitioner.  Therefore, the Information Officer rejected the application of the petitioner.

Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Deputy State Tax Commissioner under Section 19(1) of the Act.  Before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant contended that the Information Officer ought to have been provided the required information to him without issuing notices to the industries.  The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner for the reasons that the industries denied consent to furnish their information by the RTI Authorities. 

The petitioner, being aggrieved against the order of First Appellate Authority filed his second appeal before the State Information Commissioner under Section 19(3) of the Act.  The said Authority upheld the orders passed by the authorities below and dismissed the appeal.

Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging the orders of Authorities under the Act.  The petitioner submitted the following before the High Court-

• The information contained in the return and other documents filed by the six industries it not a personal information of the individuals.
• The returns filed under the GST laws are public documents and therefore the RTI Authority does not require the consent of the individuals.
• The information sought by the petitioner is not a third-party information to be given under Section 11 of the Act.
• The said six industries obtained tenders from the State Government committed huge fraud of the public money.  The petitioner needs the required information to substantiate the grievances. 
• The request of the petitioner has been denied by all the authorities under the Act.
• The impugned orders are illegal and deserve to be quashed.

The Second Appellate Authority considered the submissions of the petitioner.  He considered the question to be answered in this petition is as to whether the Information Commissioner has erred in issuing notices to the industries under Section 11 of the Act.  The Second Appellate Authority relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Versus SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL - 2019 (11) TMI 895 - Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court held that in any case where information sought is personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, then the procedure contained in Section 11 of the Act shall be complied with before passing the final order.  The notice shall be issued to the concerned third party and to be heard.  Such information is to be treated as ‘confidential’. 

The High Court analysed the provisions of Section 8 of the Act which provides a list of information that are exempted to be provided and Section 11 of the Act which deals with the third party information. Section 8(1)(d) provides that the information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third part, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the said information.  The exemption available under Section 8(1)(d) is not absolute but is qualified and cannot be invoked when a larger public interest exists.  As such the High Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that no notice ought to have been given to the industries whose returns were asked by the petitioner.

Next, the High Court analysed the provisions of Section 158 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.  Section 158(1) of the said Act provides that all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with the provisions of the Act (other than proceedings before a criminal court) or in any record of any proceedings under this Act shall, save as provided in sub section (3), not be disclosed. The High Court observed that Section 158(1) specifically prohibits information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

The High Court, therefore, held that the returns furnished by the 6 industries cannot be furnished by the GST Authorities under Section 158(1) of the CGST Act except as provided in Section 158(3) of the GST Act.  The High Court further held that GST Act, being a special enactment and a later enactment would override the provisions of the Act. The information prohibited under Section 158(3) of the GST Act cannot be disclosed under the Act.

The High Court further observed that the allegation of the petitioner that there is a large scale fraud and that he needed the information in order to prosecute the industries which is bald in nature.  There is no prima facie evident to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud.  There is no larger public interest involved in this matter. 

In view of the above, the High Court dismissed the petition.