Section 158 GST Act Overrides RTI Disclosure Obligations: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Private Firm Returns - 2025-10-14

When Transparency Hits a Privacy Wall: HC Rules on GST Data Access

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has reinforced the boundaries of corporate privacy within the framework of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. In a recent judgment, Justice Arun R. Pedneker dismissed a writ petition seeking access to the GST returns of six private firms, ruling that the specific confidentiality provisions under the GST Act take precedence over general transparency laws.

The Quest for Private Tax Data

The dispute originated when Adarsh Pimpare, the petitioner, filed an RTI application seeking detailed GST filings—spanning from 2008 to 2023—of six specific business entities operating in Latur, Maharashtra. The petitioner alleged that these firms had engaged in "large scale fraud" and manipulated government tenders.

Both the Information Officer and the Appellate Authority rejected the request, citing Section 11 of the RTI Act (which governs third-party information) and the firms' own refusal to consent to such disclosure. The State Information Commissioner later upheld this refusal, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The Conflict: RTI Act vs. GST Law

The core of the legal battle addressed a classic clash between transparency and statutory confidentiality. The petitioner argued that GST returns were "public documents" essential to uncovering potential fraud against the state.

Conversely, the respondents highlighted that the GST Act—a special, subsequent legislation—contains a robust confidentiality mandate. Section 158(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act mandates that returns and documents produced under the Act remain confidential, with very limited exceptions for law enforcement or official audit purposes.

Legal Analysis: The Primacy of Special Enactments

The Court’s analysis relied on two foundational pillars: 1. Mandatory Section 11 Procedures : Citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal , the Court affirmed that when an authority considers disclosing information belonging to a third party, and that party has treated the information as confidential, strict adherence to the Section 11 notice process is mandatory. 2. Statutory Supersession : Justice Pedneker clarified that because the GST Act is a "special enactment" and a "later enactment," it effectively overrides the general disclosure obligations found in the RTI Act.

Key Observations

• On the necessity of third-party notifications: "Wherever the disclosure of third party is sought and such information has been prima facie treated as confidential by the third party in question, the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory."
• On the confidentiality of GST records: "GST ACT being a special enactment and a later enactment would override the RTI Act (general enactment) and the information which is prohibited to be provided under Section 158 of the GST Act cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act."
• On the insufficiency of claims: Regarding the petitioner’s allegations of fraud, the Court noted: "The allegation is bald in nature. There is no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud."

The Final Verdict: A Closed Door on Disclosure

In its final order, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that "no case is made out under proviso to Section 8(1)(j) to grant information."

This decision clarifies that the RTI Act is not a tool to bypass the specific protections afforded to commercial enterprises under tax laws. For petitioners, the judgment serves as a cautionary tale: broad allegations of "public interest" are insufficient to waive statutory confidentiality protections; to succeed, one must provide compelling prima facie evidence of wrongdoing before a public authority or court will consider lifting the veil on protected financial data.