2025 (10) TMI 794 - HC - GST

Section 11 RTI notice required before disclosing third-party information; Sections 8 and 11 read together, Section 158 bars GST disclosure

HC held that where requested information pertains to a third party, the mandatory Section 11 notice procedure under the RTI Act must be followed before ... Validity/correctness in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act - Whether Section 158 of the GST Act would also be an impediment in providing information under the RTI Act? Validity/correctness in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act - HELD THAT:- The said issue is answered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [2019 (11) TMI 895 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in any case where the information sought is personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act the procedure under Section 11 must be complied with before final order is passed and the third party concerned are required to be issued notice and heard as they are not parties before it. Third party information relates to or has been supplied by any other person (including a public authority) other than the information applicant and has to be treated as confidential by such third party. Where disclosure of third party information is sought, such information must be prima facie treated as confidential by the third party and the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act must be mandatorily followed. Section 8 and 11 must be read together. This Court has dealt with the issue of applicability of Section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act by analyzing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and the Court has explained that the RTI Act operationalize the disclosure of information held by public authorities to reduce the asymmetry of information between individual citizens and the State apparatus. However, the Constitution Bench has observed that enacting the RTI Act the Parliament was cognizant that an unrestricted disclosure of information could be fiscally inefficient, result and would do real-world harms and infringe the rights of others. Thus, the Constitution Bench while quoting the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act explained the non-obstante phrase carved exceptions under Section 8 to the general obligation to disclose information under the RTI Act. Therefore, where the conditions set out in any of the sub-clauses of Clause (1) of Section 8 are satisfied, Information Officers are under no obligation to provide information of any applicant - In the instant case the information which is sought relates to the third party and the GST Authorities holds the information i.e. GST returns of the third party. When such an information is asked the Authorities constituted has to issue under Section 11 to the effected person as this provision is held to be mandatory. As such, the first objection of the Petitioner that no notice ought to have been given to the Industries whose GST returns were asked by applicant is rejected. Whether Section 158 of the GST Act would also be an impediment in providing information under the RTI Act? - HELD THAT:- Section 158 (1) of the GST Act provides that the information of the GST cannot be provided to third parties - In the instant case, the Petitioner has applied for the information contending that that there is a large scale fraud and that he needs the information in order to prosecute the industries. The allegation is bald in nature. There is no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud. Although the response given by the industries is that the industries are closed on account of the harassment by the Petitioner. Based on the reply the Authorities have not provided information of GST returns of the Industries as there is no larger public interest involved in the matter. Thus no case is made out under proviso to Section 8 (1) (j) to grant information. Writ Petition is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the State Public Information Officer erred in issuing notice to third parties under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act when the information sought related to GST returns of firms. 2. Whether Section 158 of the Goods and Services Tax Act prohibits disclosure of particulars contained in GST returns in response to an RTI request and, if so, whether the GST provision overrides the RTI Act. 3. Whether the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (larger public interest) justified disclosure of the GST returns despite the exemptions and third-party objections. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Requirement to invoke Section 11 RTI before disclosure of third-party GST information Legal framework: Section 2(n) defines 'third party'; Section 11 mandates written notice to a third party where disclosure relates to or has been supplied by that third party and has been treated as confidential; Section 8 provides exemptions including clause (j) on personal information. Precedent treatment: The Constitution Bench decision in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supreme Court) was applied and followed for the proposition that Section 11's procedure is mandatory where information sought is third-party personal/confidential information; Section 8 and Section 11 must be read together. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that GST returns held by the tax authority constitute information relating to third parties. Where such information is prima facie treated as confidential by the third party and falls within the scope of Section 8(1)(j) or other clause(s), the statutory procedure under Section 11 is mandatory and the information officer must give the third party opportunity to make submissions before deciding disclosure. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 11 procedure is mandatory for third-party information prima facie treated as confidential; the officer must consider third-party objections in deciding disclosure. (The Court expressly follows the constitutional bench ratio.) Conclusions: The objection that no notice should have been issued is rejected; issuance of notice under Section 11 was legally required and properly made in the circumstances. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Effect of Section 158 GST Act on disclosure under the RTI Act Legal framework: Section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of particulars contained in statements, returns, accounts or documents furnished under that Act, subject to specified exceptions in Section 158(3); RTI Act's Section 8 provides general exemptions and allows disclosure where larger public interest outweighs harm. Precedent treatment: The Court treated the GST provision as a later and special enactment vis-à-vis the RTI Act (a general enactment) and applied the principle that a special, later statute will override a general earlier statute insofar as there is inconsistency. Interpretation and reasoning: Section 158(1) expressly bars disclosure of particulars in GST returns except as permitted by subsection (3). Given the express prohibition, the GST Act's embargo on disclosure operates as a statutory bar to furnishing returns under RTI. The Court reasoned that where a specific statutory provision restricts disclosure, that regime takes precedence over the general disclosure obligations under the RTI Act; thus, information prohibited by Section 158(1) cannot be supplied under RTI except under the enumerated exceptions in Section 158(3). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 158(1) being specific and later in time overrides the RTI Act's general disclosure regime; GST returns protected by Section 158(1) cannot be disclosed under RTI except where Section 158(3) permits. Conclusions: Section 158(1) constitutes an independent statutory impediment to disclosure of GST returns in response to an RTI request; the tax authority was correct in treating Section 158 as a bar to disclosure outside the exceptions listed in subsection (3). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Whether larger public interest warranted disclosure despite exemptions Legal framework: Proviso to Section 8(1)(j) permits disclosure of personal information if the Central/State Public Information Officer is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure; Section 11 proviso similarly permits disclosure where public interest outweighs harm to third party. Precedent treatment: The Court applied the constitutional bench guidance that exemptions are qualified and may be overridden by demonstrable larger public interest; however, a claimant must establish prima facie material to demonstrate that larger public interest exists. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner alleged large-scale fraud and sought GST returns to substantiate that allegation. The Court examined the record and found the allegations bald and unsupported by prima facie evidence. The firms' responses referred to harassment, and the authorities concluded there was no demonstrable larger public interest warranting disclosure. Further, where Section 158 of GST Act separately bars disclosure, the scope for overriding exemptions under RTI is constrained by the GST statutory bar unless an exception in Section 158(3) applies. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Mere allegation of wrongdoing, absent prima facie material showing larger public interest, is insufficient to overcome statutory protections (Section 8/11 of RTI and Section 158 GST); public-interest override requires substantive justification and cannot be inferred from bald assertions. Conclusions: No larger public interest was demonstrated to justify disclosure of the GST returns; the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) was not attracted and the RTI-based request for GST returns was properly refused on that ground (and in light of Section 158). The petition for disclosure was therefore dismissed. Cross-references and final synthesis Section 11's mandatory notice procedure applies to third-party GST information (Issue 1) and must be observed before any disclosure decision; independently, Section 158 of the GST Act (Issue 2) places an express statutory prohibition on disclosure of GST particulars except as listed in subsection (3), and being a later, special enactment it constrains disclosure under the RTI Act; finally, even where RTI exemptions are qualified by a larger public interest test (Issue 3), the petitioner failed to adduce prima facie material to satisfy that test, and therefore disclosure was not justified.