Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Held

The Court held that the Respondent No. 2 was correct in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, as the information sought pertained to third parties. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court affirmed that if information sought is personal or relates to a third party, the procedure under Section 11, including issuing notice and hearing the third party, must be complied with. The Court further held that Section 158(1) of the GST Act specifically prohibits the disclosure of particulars contained in GST returns furnished under the Act, except as provided in sub-section (3). The GST Act, being a special and later enactment, would override the general enactment, the RTI Act. Therefore, information prohibited under Section 158 of the GST Act cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Petitioner's allegations of large-scale fraud were deemed bald and lacking prima facie evidence, and no larger public interest was established to justify disclosure under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The Petitioner, Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking GST returns filed by six specific industries in Udgir, District Latur, from 2008 to 2023. The Assistant State Tax Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), after issuing notices to the industries and receiving objections, rejected the application. The Petitioner's first appeal before the Deputy State Tax Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) was also rejected, as the firms denied consent for disclosure of information to a third party. Subsequently, the State Information Commissioner dismissed the Petitioner's second appeal. The Petitioner challenged these orders before the Bombay High Court, arguing that GST returns are public documents and do not constitute personal information requiring consent for disclosure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent No. 2 erred in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, when seeking disclosure of GST returns. 2. Whether GST returns filed by industries constitute public documents or personal information that requires consent for disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005, considering the provisions of the GST Act. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that GST returns are public documents and not personal information. He argued that the Respondent No. 2 should not have issued notices to the concerned industries and should have provided the information directly. The Petitioner also alleged that the industries obtained tenders from the State Government by manipulating documents and committing fraud, necessitating the disclosure of GST returns to substantiate his grievance. He relied on the principle that information sought is not protected by law or harmful to the public at large. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents argued, implicitly through the orders passed by the authorities below and the judgment's reasoning, that the information sought was third-party information and that the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act was correctly followed. They relied on Section 158(1) of the GST Act, which prohibits disclosure of GST returns except as provided in sub-section (3), and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. The judgment notes that the industries denied consent and that the Petitioner's allegations of fraud were bald and lacked prima facie evidence.