GST Returns Shielded from RTI Act, Bombay High Court Rules, Citing Special Law Supremacy The court held that the confidentiality provisions under Section 158 of the GST Act override the general disclosure mandate of the RTI Act, protecting corporate tax information from third-party access.

MUMBAI, India – In a significant judgment reinforcing the confidentiality of corporate tax data, the Bombay High Court has ruled that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Aurangabad bench, presided over by single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar, established that the specific prohibitions within the GST Act, a special and more recent law, take precedence over the general transparency framework of the RTI Act.

The decision in Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of Maharashtra dismisses a petition that sought to access the GST filings of six private companies under the guise of public interest, thereby clarifying the legal boundaries between tax privacy and the public's right to know.

Case Background and Petitioner's Allegations

The matter originated from an RTI application filed on February 13, 2023, by Adarsh Pimpare. He sought detailed GST submission records from the financial year 2008 to 2023 for six industrial firms located in Udgir taluka, Latur district. The companies named were M/s. Vyankateshwara Mahila Audyogik Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, M/s. Aniket Trading Company, M/s. Mayureshwar Trading Company, M/s. New Prasad Products and Agencies, M/s. Kalyani Trading, and M/s. Prasad Industries.

Pimpare alleged that these firms, which he claimed worked under government contracts, had engaged in a "huge fraud of public money" by manipulating documents and failing to submit their due GST payments. He contended that accessing their tax returns was crucial to prosecuting this alleged fraud and served a larger public interest.

His application was successively rejected by the Assistant State Tax Commissioner and the Deputy State Tax Commissioner. The authorities, following procedure, had issued notices to the six companies, all of which objected to the disclosure of their financial information. Pimpare’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the State Information Commissioner on December 30, 2024, prompting him to file the writ petition before the High Court.

The Core Legal Conflict: RTI Act vs. GST Act

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the RTI Act's mandate for transparency could compel the disclosure of information explicitly protected as confidential under the GST Act. Advocate Maniyar Irfan D, representing the petitioner, argued that the information was necessary to expose financial wrongdoing and thus fell within the public interest exception.

However, the court’s analysis focused on the interplay between two key statutory provisions: 1. Section 158(1) of the GST Act: This section imposes a strict prohibition on the disclosure of particulars from any statement, return, or document furnished under the Act. 2. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: This clause provides an exemption for personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Disclosure is only permitted if the information officer is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies it.

Justice Pednekar unequivocally held that the GST Act, being a special and later enactment, would prevail over the RTI Act, a general law. This conclusion rests on the established legal principle of generalia specialibus non derogant —a special law will override a general one where they conflict.

In his ruling, Justice Pednekar observed, “Section 158 sub-clause (1) specifically provides that all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with the GST Act... shall, save as provided in sub-section (3) not be disclosed. Thus, the returns furnished by the industries under Section 158 (1) cannot be disclosed by the GST authorities except as provided in sub-section 3 of Section 158.”

He concluded this point by stating, “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.”

Public Interest Exception Not Met

The court then examined whether the petitioner’s request could satisfy the "larger public interest" proviso under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Pimpare’s claim was based on a sweeping allegation of "large-scale fraud." However, the court found this assertion to be unsubstantiated and insufficient to override the statutory confidentiality protections.

"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," Justice Pednekar opined. "The allegation is bald in nature. There is no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud."

The court noted that the tax authorities had considered the responses from the targeted companies, which claimed they had closed down due to harassment from the petitioner. Based on this, the authorities concluded that no larger public interest was involved. The High Court found no reason to interfere with this assessment, stating, "Thus no case is made out under proviso to Section 8 (1) (j) to grant information."

Implications for Corporate Privacy and RTI Activism

This judgment has significant implications for both corporations and RTI activists.

• Strengthened Corporate Data Protection: The ruling provides a robust legal shield for sensitive financial data submitted to tax authorities. It assures businesses that their GST returns, which contain critical operational and financial details, are protected from competitors, vexatious litigants, and fishing expeditions conducted via RTI applications.
• Higher Bar for Public Interest Claims: The court's dismissal of "bald" and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud sets a higher evidentiary standard for invoking the public interest exception under the RTI Act. Activists and whistleblowers seeking third-party tax information will likely need to present prima facie evidence of wrongdoing to convince information officers and courts to compel disclosure.
• Clarification of Statutory Hierarchy: The decision serves as a key precedent on the relationship between the RTI Act and other special statutes containing confidentiality clauses. It reinforces that while the RTI Act promotes transparency, it does not have an absolute overriding effect on specific non-disclosure provisions enacted by Parliament to protect sensitive information, be it financial, personal, or related to national security.

By upholding the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court has drawn a clear line, prioritizing the specific confidentiality mandate of the GST regime over the generalized disclosure principles of the RTI framework, absent a compelling and evidenced public interest.