Are the GST RETURNS liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005?

1. 1. Copies of returns filed by a Taxpayer to the government authorities have often been sought by RTI applicants and in case of the Income Tax Return (ITR), the verdict of the superior courts have distinctly laid the steps to be taken by the Public Information Officer (PIO). Similar analogy was taken in the cases pertaining to the GST returns in the absence of a specific judgment of the higher judiciary.
   2. The Central Information Commission (CIC) had earlier ruled in some cases that the GST returns are third party information which is not liable to be disclosed in the absence of a larger public interest. A case reported earlier in this website is given below:

   Tax details and GST returns were denied claiming it is confidential Third Party information
   Read more at: https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/tax-details-and-gst-returns-were-denied-claiming-i
   Citation: Vinita Nareeshkuamr Biyani v. Asstt. Commissioner CGST Service Tax Div IV, CIC/DGSTX/A/20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /159699; Date of Decision: 18/10/2023

   3. In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that the GST returns are exempt from disclosure under certain clauses of the section 8(1) the RTI Act, 2005. Before looking into the said case, let us look at some of the past cases of disclosure of Income Tax Return (ITR) under the RTI Act.

   3.1 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 held as under:

   14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

   3.2 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in WP(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:

   “25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"

   3.3. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under

   “16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Incom e Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.

   23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the condition mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided.

   4. Background of this particular case:

   An RTI application was filed with the PIO of State Tax Commissioner seeking GST submission details from 2008 to 2023 for six industries in Latur district. The PIO issued notices to the concerned industries, who objected to sharing the information, leading to rejection of the request. The appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Officer and the State Information Commissioner upholding previous order.

   5. Contentions of the Petitioner
   5. 1The six firms filed GST returns before the State Tax Commissioner and the information is not a personal information of the individuals.
   1. 2 The information sought was only about the GST returns filed by the six forms which are public documents. Hence, the PIO was not required to take consent from the concerned firms for providing the information.
   2. 3 These firms are working under the Maharashtra State Government and had obtained tenders from the State Government by manipulating documents. By not submitting the GST, they had committed huge fraud of the public money. The information is needed in order to substantiate the grievance.
   3. 4 The GST returns are not a third party information under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The information is not protected by law and ought to be provided being is a public document.

    

   6. Observations of the Bombay High Court:

   6.1 Whether the PIO erred in issuing notice to the industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act?

   Referring to the Constitution Bench in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal; (2020) 5 SCC 481 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ruled that where the information sought is personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, the procedure under Section 11 must be complied with before final order is passed and the third party notice are required to be issued to the concerned as they are not parties before it.

   The different sections of the RTI Act, Section 8 and 11, must be read together. Section 11 (2) encapsulates the fundamental idea that a party whose personal information is sought to be disclosed is afforded the opportunity to contest the disclosure of information. The proviso permits disclosure where the public interest in disclosure outweighs any possible harm in disclosure.

   The GST returns of the third party are held by the public authority and when such information is asked, issue of a notice under Section 11 to the effected person is mandatory. As such, the objection of the Petitioner that no notice ought to have been given to the Industries whose GST returns were asked by applicant was rejected.

   6.2 Whether Section 158 of the GST Act prohibits providing information under the RTI Act?

   Section 158 (1) of the GST Act specifically prohibits giving information of GST returns except as provided in sub-section 3. 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, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under the GST Act (other than the proceedings before a criminal court), or in any record of any proceedings under the GST Act shall, save as provided in sub-section (3) not be disclosed.

   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. Therefore, the returns furnished by the industries under Section 158 (1) cannot be disclosed except as provided Section 158 (3).

   Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act also prohibits information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO or the FAA, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

   The Petitioner alleged a large scale fraud and that claimed that the information was need in order to prosecute the industries. The HC observed that the allegation is bald in nature and there is no prima facie evidence to show that the industries have indulged in large scale fraud. The HC noted the response of the industries that they are closed on account of the harassment by the Petitioner. The HC agreed with the reply holding that no larger public interest is involved in the matter and no case is made out under proviso to Section 8 (1) (j) to grant information.

   7. Comments
   1. 1  A categorical assertion by the High Court that copies of the GST returns are covered under the exemptions sections of the RTI Act would help in removing ambiguity on the matter.
   2. 2 The concept of public interest has been clarified with the HC asserting that merely making allegations does not suffice invoking the proviso.
   3. 3 The section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act, 2005 gives supremacy to the RTI Act which has been has been put to test by the ruling that the GST Act would override the RTI Act.

    

   8. Relevant sections of the RTI Act

   Section 2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.

   Section 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.

   (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—

   (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

   (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

   Section 11. Third party information.—

   (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

   (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, tinder sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

   Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. . Act to have overriding effect.

   The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

   Citation: High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Adarsh v. The State of Maharashtra, Jan Mahiti Adhikari / Assistant State Tax Commissioner, and First Appellate Officer/ Deputy State Tax Commissioner in W P NO. 11135 of 2025; Date of judgment : 14.10.2025