TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Oil companies' demand for personal financial info from dealers infringes privacy rights, lacks legal basis. Circular quashed.</h1> <h3>RAJU SEBASTIAN, SUNIL KUMAR P.S., ANIYAN ABRAHAM Versus UNION OF INDIA, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL)</h3> RAJU SEBASTIAN, SUNIL KUMAR P.S., ANIYAN ABRAHAM Versus UNION OF INDIA, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the demand for sales tax returns, bank account statements, and income tax returns by oil marketing companies.2. Infringement of the right to privacy.3. Validity of the dealership agreements in demanding personal financial information.4. Applicability of the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment on privacy rights.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Demand for Financial Information:The appellants, who are petroleum retail dealers, challenged the demand by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for sales tax returns, bank account statements, and income tax returns as per Ext.P2 circular. BPCL justified this demand as a policy decision to ensure outlets are not operated on a benami basis. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) also contended they have the right to demand such information based on dealership agreements, though they had not issued similar demands at the time.2. Infringement of the Right to Privacy:The appellants argued that compelling them to furnish bank account statements and income tax returns infringes their right to privacy, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty but is not absolute. Any encroachment on privacy must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.3. Validity of the Dealership Agreements in Demanding Personal Financial Information:The court examined whether the dealership agreements could mandate the disclosure of personal financial information. It was argued that personal financial details, such as bank account statements and income tax returns, are private and any demand for such information must be legally sanctioned. The court found that the dealership agreements could not override the fundamental right to privacy, and a contract between an individual and a corporate body does not constitute a law.4. Applicability of the K.S. Puttaswamy Judgment on Privacy Rights:The court applied the three-fold test from K.S. Puttaswamy to determine the legality of the demand for personal financial information:- Legality: The court found no statutory basis for the oil companies' demand for income tax returns and bank account statements. The companies failed to demonstrate any legal provision authorizing such demands.- Necessity and Proportionality: Since the demand did not pass the test of legality, the court did not need to consider necessity and proportionality.Conclusion:The court concluded that the demand for personal financial information by BPCL, as per Ext.P2 circular, and similar potential demands by IOCL and HPCL, infringed the right to privacy and lacked legal sanction. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the circular issued by BPCL was quashed. The court held that the oil marketing companies have no right to require the appellants to furnish their income tax returns and bank account statements as a condition for continuing their petroleum retail dealership. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
