GST Returns Are Confidential: Section 158 of the GST Act Overrides RTI Requests for Third-Party Tax Records; Section 11 Notice Mandatory

Introduction

In Writ Petition No. 11135 of 2025, decided on 14 October 2025, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), per Arun R. Pedneker, J., addressed the interface between the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and the confidentiality regime under the Goods and Services Tax laws. The petitioner, Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare, sought disclosure of Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns (2008–2023) of six firms based in Udgir, District Latur, alleging large-scale fraud in relation to government tenders.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) treated the requested data as third-party information, issued notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act to the firms, received objections, and denied disclosure. The first appeal (Section 19(1) RTI Act) and second appeal (Section 19(3) RTI Act) were dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging:

• Order dated 03.03.2023 by the Assistant State Tax Commissioner/Jan Mahiti Adhikari (Respondent No. 2);
• Order dated 31.03.2023 by the First Appellate Officer/Deputy State Tax Commissioner (Respondent No. 3); and
• Order dated 30.12.2024 by the State Information Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

The key issues before the Court were: (i) whether issuing third-party notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act was mandatory in such cases; (ii) whether GST returns are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act by virtue of Section 8(1), particularly clauses (d) (commercial confidence) and (j) (personal information); and (iii) whether Section 158 of the GST Act constitutes a statutory bar that overrides the RTI Act in relation to disclosure of GST returns, absent the exceptions in Section 158(3).

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld all impugned orders. Its core holdings are:

• Issuance of third-party notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory where the requested information relates to a third party and is prima facie confidential, especially when it falls within Section 8(1)(j) (personal information) or Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence).
• GST returns of third parties are non-disclosable by virtue of Section 158(1) of the GST Act, 2017, except in the circumstances enumerated in Section 158(3). The Court expressly holds that the GST Act, being a later and special enactment, overrides the general disclosure obligation under the RTI Act in this domain.
• The petitioner’s generalized allegations of fraud did not satisfy the “larger public interest” threshold to overcome the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. No prima facie material was produced to justify disclosure.

Consequently, the Court affirmed the legality of the PIO’s Section 11 procedure and the denial of access to the requested GST returns.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court relied primarily on the Constitution Bench decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481. In that landmark ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the interplay between Section 8 (exemptions) and Section 11 (third-party information) of the RTI Act:

• Where the information sought is “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j), the Section 11 process must be followed before disclosure, as a matter of procedural fairness.
• Section 11 embodies a mandatory consultative process: the third party must be notified and allowed to object, and the PIO must consider those objections before deciding.
• Section 8 and Section 11 are to be read together; the third-party’s interest in confidentiality is recognized, but subject to a public interest override where applicable.

Applying this framework, the High Court concluded that issuing Section 11 notices to the six firms was not merely permissible but mandatory. The firms’ objections were relevant and had to be factored into the PIO’s decision. This foreclosed the petitioner’s argument that the PIO ought to have furnished GST returns without inviting third-party objections.

Statutory Architecture and the Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two concentric steps—first, the RTI Act’s internal exemptions; second, the external statutory bar under the GST Act.

1) RTI Act: Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j), and 11

The Court reiterated core principles from Subhash Chandra Agarwal and the text of Section 8:

• Section 8(1)(d) exempts information involving commercial confidence or trade secrets whose disclosure would harm a third party’s competitive position, unless larger public interest warrants disclosure.
• Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information where disclosure bears no relationship to public activity or interest, or would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justifies disclosure.
• Section 11 mandates notice and hearing of the third party when confidential third-party information is sought, embedding due process before any disclosure decision.

On facts, the Court viewed GST returns of private firms as third-party information held by the GST authorities. It accepted that such returns are treated as confidential by the third parties and fall within the protective ambit of Section 8(1) read with Section 11. The Court then tested whether the “larger public interest” exception was triggered. It concluded that the petitioner’s allegations of fraud were bald and unsupported by prima facie material; hence, the exception did not apply.

2) GST Act: Section 158 as a Statutory Bar

The decisive plank of the ruling is the Court’s reliance on Section 158 of the Central/State GST laws:

• Section 158(1) erects a confidentiality wall around “all particulars” contained in returns, statements, accounts, documents, and evidence produced under the Act, prohibiting disclosure except as provided in Section 158(3).
• Section 158(3) enumerates limited exceptions—e.g., disclosures for prosecutions (IPC/PC Act), to government officials implementing GST, for recovery processes, to audit officers, disciplinary inquiries, and publication of information relating to classes of taxable persons/transactions where the Commissioner deems it in the public interest.

The Court held that, because GST returns fall squarely within Section 158(1), the PIO is statutorily proscribed from disclosing them to third parties except in the enumerated scenarios in Section 158(3). Significantly, the Court characterized the GST Act as a “special” and “later” enactment that overrides the general regime of disclosure under the RTI Act in this domain.

This special-law override analysis (lex specialis derogat legi generali, and lex posterior derogat priori) is the judgment’s central doctrinal move. In practical effect, the Court treats Section 158 as an explicit confidentiality command that the RTI framework cannot neutralize for third-party GST returns, unless an exception within Section 158(3) itself applies.

3) Public Interest: Threshold and Evidence

The petitioner contended that the firms obtained government tenders by manipulating documents and evaded GST, thereby committing a fraud on public money. The Court found these assertions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the “larger public interest” threshold under the RTI Act. As a result:

• The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) (public interest override) was not engaged.
• No exception under Section 158(3) of the GST Act was triggered on the record.
• The PIO, the first appellate authority, and the State Information Commissioner rightly denied disclosure.

Impact and Prospective Significance

The judgment has notable implications for RTI practice and tax-confidentiality law:

• GST returns as non-disclosable: Requests under the RTI Act seeking third-party GST returns will likely be denied by reference to Section 158(1) of the GST Act, unless the information falls within Section 158(3) exceptions.
• Mandatory Section 11 process: Public Information Officers must follow the Section 11 notice-and-hearing procedure whenever third-party tax records are sought. Failure to do so risks invalidation of the decision-making process.
• Higher bar for “larger public interest”: Generalized accusations of fraud will not suffice. Applicants should furnish prima facie evidence to persuade authorities that the public interest override eclipses private confidentiality or commercial harm.
• Compliance orientation for tax authorities: The decision strengthens the confidentiality posture of GST authorities, limiting the scope for disclosure through RTI and channeling sensitive data-sharing through the statutory gateways in Section 158(3).
• Governance and procurement oversight: While citizen oversight of public contracting is a legitimate public interest, this judgment signals that such oversight must be pursued through investigative/referral mechanisms (e.g., complaints to GST enforcement, vigilance bodies), rather than by direct RTI access to tax returns of contractors.

A point of doctrinal interest is that the Court applies the special-law override principle without a detailed engagement with Section 22 of the RTI Act (which gives the RTI Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws) or with the contours of Section 8(2) (public interest override). The judgment thus carves out a clear—albeit contestable—priority for Section 158 in the specific context of third-party GST returns. Future appellate or coordinate-bench decisions may elaborate this interface further, particularly the reconciliation between Section 22 RTI and Section 158 GST.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Third-party information (RTI Act): Information about someone other than the requester, including companies, which is treated as confidential by that third party. When sought, the PIO must issue notice to the third party (Section 11) and consider their objections.
• Personal information (Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act): Data relating to an individual’s privacy that has no relationship to public activity or interest; disclosure can be refused unless overriding public interest is shown. While firms are not “individuals”, requests involving sensitive business records often raise parallel privacy and commercial-confidence concerns.
• Commercial confidence (Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act): Information such as trade secrets or commercially sensitive data, disclosure of which could harm a third party’s competitive position; can still be disclosed if larger public interest warrants it.
• Section 11 notice: A mandatory consultation step. Before deciding on disclosure of confidential third-party information, the PIO must notify the third party and consider their submissions.
• Section 158 GST Act: A confidentiality provision prohibiting disclosure of particulars in GST returns and related records, with limited exceptions in Section 158(3) (e.g., prosecutions, audits, recovery, publication in public interest for classes of taxpayers/transactions).
• Lex specialis principle: Where two statutes conflict, a specific, later statute typically prevails over a general, earlier one in its targeted domain.
• Larger public interest: A balancing standard. Disclosure may be compelled where the benefit to the public (for instance, exposing corruption or protecting public funds) clearly outweighs privacy or commercial harm. The applicant bears the burden to present prima facie material.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Adarsh Gautam Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra et al. consolidates two key propositions in the intersection of transparency and tax confidentiality: first, that the third-party consultative process under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory when confidential information of third parties is sought; and second, that Section 158 of the GST Act operates as a substantive statutory bar against disclosure of GST returns to third parties through RTI, save for the circumscribed exceptions in Section 158(3).

On the facts, the petitioner’s unsubstantiated allegations of fraud could not activate the “larger public interest” override to dilute either the RTI exemptions (Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j)) or the GST confidentiality regime. The writ petition was therefore rightly dismissed.

Doctrinally, the ruling prioritizes fiscal confidentiality over blanket transparency where third-party tax records are concerned, channeling disclosure through the specific statutory gateways of the GST Act rather than the general machinery of the RTI Act. The judgment’s special-law override approach may invite further jurisprudential elaboration on RTI’s Section 22, but as it stands, it sets a clear precedent for handling RTI requests targeting GST returns: follow Section 11, apply Section 8 rigorously, and treat Section 158 as a substantive bar unless its own exceptions are squarely met.