ADARSH GAUTAM PIMPARE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(j), 11, 19 - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 158 - Third party information - Mandatory procedure under Section 11 of RTI Act - Information relating to or supplied by third party treated as confidential - Notice to third party mandatory - Constitution Bench judgment on interplay of Sections 8 and 11 - GST returns are personal information within Section 8(1)(j) - Section 158(1) of GST Act prohibits disclosure of returns except as provided in sub-section (3) - GST Act being a special and later enactment overrides RTI Act - No larger public interest established - Bald allegations of fraud insufficient to warrant disclosure. (Paras 10, 13, 14)

(B) Interpretation of statutes - Special Act (GST Act) prevails over general Act (RTI Act) where provisions conflict - Prohibition under Section 158 of GST Act cannot be circumvented by RTI Act.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act seeking GST returns from 2008 to 2023 of six industries from a local tax office. The Information Officer issued notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The industries objected to disclosure. The application was rejected. Appeals to the First Appellate Officer and the State Information Commissioner were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging these orders, contending that GST returns are public documents and that no notice was required.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory when information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and treated as confidential. The Information Officer rightly issued notice. Further, Section 158(1) of the GST Act specifically prohibits disclosure of particulars contained in returns, save as provided in sub-section (3). Being a special and later enactment, the GST Act overrides the RTI Act. The information sought is personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and the petitioner failed to establish any larger public interest. The allegations of fraud were bald and unsupported by prima facie evidence. Therefore, the impugned orders were upheld.

Issues: (1) Whether the Information Officer was required to issue notice to the third party industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act? (2) Whether Section 158 of the GST Act bars disclosure of GST returns under the RTI Act? (3) Whether the petitioner demonstrated a larger public interest to override the exemptions?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 11 of the RTI Act mandates notice to a third party whose information is sought and treated as confidential. Additionally, Section 158(1) of the GST Act creates a statutory bar against disclosure of returns, and this prohibition prevails over the RTI Act due to the principle that a special and later enactment overrides a general one. In the absence of any prima facie evidence of fraud or larger public interest, the information cannot be disclosed. Result : Petition dismissed. Rule discharged.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petitioner sought GST returns of industries under RTI Act — Information Officer rejected after third-party notice — Appeals dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Petitioner argued GST returns are public documents — Respondent argued third-party information and GST Act prohibition apply. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )

3. Writ petition dismissed — Rule discharged. (Para 15 )

4. Is notice to third parties mandatory under Section 11 of the RTI Act when information relates to a third party?

Yes, the procedure under Section 11 is mandatory when the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and is treated as confidential. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )

5. Does Section 158 of the GST Act bar disclosure of GST returns under the RTI Act?

Yes, Section 158 prohibits disclosure of returns; being a special later enactment, it overrides the general RTI Act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )

6. Can disclosure of third-party information be ordered on the ground of larger public interest?

Only if there is prima facie evidence of larger public interest; bald allegations are insufficient. (Para 14 )

JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2- Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner, order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Respondent No.3- First Appellate Officer/ Deputy State Tax Commissioner and the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Ch. Sambhajinagar.

3. The case in brief of the Petitioner is that on 13.02.2023 he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with Respondent No.2- Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner and sought information in respect of submissions of GST from the financial year 2008 to 2023 of six different industries from Tq. Udgir, Dist Latur. Those are M/s. Vyankateshwara Mahila Audyogik Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Udgir, M/s. Aniket Trading Company, Udgir, M/s. Mayureshwar Trading Company, Udgir, M/s. New Prasad Products and Agencies, Udgir, M/s. Kalyani Trading, Udgir and M/s. Prasad Industries, Udgir.

4. In pursuance of the application the Information Officer issued notice to the concerned Industries seeking response on the application. The concerned Industries responded with objection to provide information to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the application filed by the Petitioner was rejected. The counsel for the Petitioner in this regard submits that the Information Officer ought not to have issued notices to the concerned Industries and that the information ought to have been provided to him without issuing notice to the

Respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Officer/ Deputy State Tax Commissioner. The Petitioner preferred separate appeals. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeals for the reason that the firms has denied consent to provide information to a third party and confirmed the order passed by the Respondent No.2- Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 the State Information Commissioner dismissed the second appeal filed by the Petitioner upholding the orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the present petition is filed to challenge the aforesaid orders.

5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the six firms filed GST before the Respondent No.2 and that the information is not a personal information of the individuals and the Petitioner was only seeking the GST returns filed. The documents are public documents and that the Respondent No.2 was not required to take consent from the concerned firms for providing the information.

6. It is also submitted that all six firms are working under the Maharashtra State Government and obtained tenders from the State Government by manipulating documents and by not submitting the GST they had committed huge fraud of the public money. The Petitioner in order to

substantiate the grievance needs the information which is denied illegally. He submits that the impugned orders are illegal and deserve to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel submits that the GST returns are public documents and not a secret information that is not to be disclosed. It is also not a third party information given under Section 11 of the RTI Act. In the instant case the information sought is not protected by law or cause harm to the public at large and therefore the information sought by the Petitioner is a public document and needs to be provided.

8. Considering the submission, the first issue that needs to be considered is whether the respondent no.2 erred in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The said issue is answered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Sup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 177097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
ADARSH GAUTAM PIMPARE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP/11135/2025

GST returns are third party information under RTI Act; mandatory notice under Section 11 required. Section 158 of GST Act prohibits disclosure, overriding RTI Act. No larger public interest shown, hence disclosure rightly denied.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is notice to third parties mandatory under Section 11 of the RTI Act when information relates to a third party?

5. Does Section 158 of the GST Act bar disclosure of GST returns under the RTI Act?

6. Can disclosure of third-party information be ordered on the ground of larger public interest?

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 177097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKERADARSH GAUTAM PIMPARE – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – RespondentWP/11135/2025

GST returns are third party information under RTI Act; mandatory notice under Section 11 required. Section 158 of GST Act prohibits disclosure, overriding RTI Act. No larger public interest shown, hence disclosure rightly denied.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is notice to third parties mandatory under Section 11 of the RTI Act when information relates to a third party?

5. Does Section 158 of the GST Act bar disclosure of GST returns under the RTI Act?

6. Can disclosure of third-party information be ordered on the ground of larger public interest?

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
ADARSH GAUTAM PIMPARE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP/11135/2025