In a significant judgment dated October 14, 2025, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that information relating to a company’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns cannot be disclosed to third parties under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Court held that such data is confidential in nature and is expressly protected under Section 158(1) of the GST Act, which prohibits disclosure of particulars contained in any GST return or related record except in limited, legally permitted circumstances.
The case — Adarsh Gautam Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra & Others — arose from an RTI application seeking details of GST filings of six private firms alleged to have manipulated tender documents. The tax department and appellate authorities rejected the request, citing statutory confidentiality. Upholding those decisions, the High Court reaffirmed that the GST Act, being a special and later statute, overrides the general provisions of the RTI Act in matters concerning disclosure of tax returns.
This ruling marks an important precedent in balancing transparency under the RTI Act and confidentiality of taxpayer information under tax laws, clarifying that unless there is a compelling larger public interest, GST filings remain beyond the scope of public access through RTI.
Case Title & Parties
- Case: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Writ Petition No. 11135 of 2025)
- Bench: Single Judge, Justice Arun R. Pedneker, Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court
- Date of decision: 14 October 2025
Factual Background
- The petitioner filed an RTI application on 13 February 2023 seeking the GST returns (from FY 2008 to 2023) of six industries located in Udgir Taluka, Latur district, Maharashtra.
- The petitioner alleged that these six firms — namely:
- 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
- M/s Prasad Industries, Udgir
— had obtained tenders from the State Government by manipulating documents and not submitting GST properly, thereby committing large-scale fraud.
- The Assistant State Tax Commissioner / Jan Mahiti Adhikari (under the GST/State tax authorities) issued notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act to the six firms (third-parties) asking them to respond to the disclosure request. The firms objected to disclosure.
- The Information Officer denied disclosure. The petitioner’s first appeal (under Section 19(1) RTI) and second appeal (under Section 19(3) RTI) were rejected. The petitioner then challenged those orders via the writ petition before the High Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Information Officer was correct in issuing notices to the six firms (third parties) under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
- Whether the GST returns/filings of third-party companies are disclosable under the RTI Act, or whether they are non-disclosable because of confidentiality provisions in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) / State GST laws — in particular Section 158.
- Whether the “larger public interest” exception under the RTI Act could override confidentiality and compel disclosure on the facts of this case.
Decision & Reasoning
(a) Section 11 notice to third parties
- The Court held that where the information sought relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential, the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory.
- The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020 5 SCC 481) which clarified that Sections 8 and 11 must be read together.
- On the facts, the returns belonged to third-party companies, and the firms had objected to disclosure; hence issuing the notices was correct. The petitioner’s argument that no notice should have been given was rejected.
(b) Confidentiality under Section 158 of GST Act vs RTI Act
- Section 158(1) of the GST Act (Central/State) provides:
“All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act … shall, save as provided in sub-section (3), not be disclosed.”
- Sub-section (3) enumerates limited exceptions (e.g., disclosure in prosecutions, for tax recovery, for audit of tax receipts/refunds, publication with Commissioner’s opinion about class of taxable persons/transactions).
- The Court held that the GST Act is a “special” enactment and a “later” enactment relative to the RTI Act (which is general). Therefore, in respect of GST returns/records, Section 158 creates a substantive bar to disclosure under the RTI Act.
- In other words, even though the RTI Act provides for access to information held by public authorities, where disclosure is prohibited by a specific statute (like Section 158), that prohibition prevails. The Court emphasised lex specialis and lex posterior principles.
(c) Larger public interest exception
- Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (personal information) and Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) the information may be denied unless “larger public interest” warrants disclosure.
- The petitioner argued that large‐scale fraud in tendering by the firms triggered public interest. However, the Court found the allegations to be “bald in nature” and lacking prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
- On the facts, the petitioner did not satisfy the threshold for the larger public interest override. Consequently, the exemption under RTI stood.
(d) Outcome
- The writ petition was dismissed. The orders rejecting disclosure of the GST returns by the Assistant State Tax Commissioner, the First Appellate Officer and the State Information Commissioner were upheld.
- In effect: GST returns of the six firms could not be disclosed to the petitioner under the RTI Act.
Key Take-aways / Implications
- Returns filed under the GST regime (statements, returns, accounts, documents etc.) are treated as confidential, and disclosure to third parties is prohibited under Section 158(1) of the GST Act, except in specified circumstances under Sub-section (3).
- When an RTI request seeks such returns of third-party taxpayers, the public authority must issue notices under Section 11 of the RTI Act and consider objections of the third party.
- The RTI Act’s general disclosure provisions do not override the specific statutory barrier under the GST Act for such returns — the GST Act is a special statute in this domain.
- Disclosure may still be possible if the request falls within the exceptions in Section 158(3) or if the larger public interest is shown to be strong enough under the RTI Act — but the bar is high.
- Applicants seeking tax-return type information under RTI must present prima facie evidence of public interest/fraud etc., not merely speculative allegations.
- Authorities should ensure compliance with Section 11 (notice to third parties) before granting any disclosure of third-party information.
Practical Guidance for Stakeholders
- Taxpayers/Businesses: Your GST return filings are protected from public‐access RTI requests to third parties unless a specific exception applies.
- RTI Applicants: If you wish to obtain GST return information of other persons/companies, you must establish a strong public interest case (and possibly fit into Section 158(3) exceptions). Merely seeking data to investigate alleged wrongdoing may not suffice without preliminary evidence.
- Public Authorities/Information Officers: In processing RTI requests for GST return info, ensure:
- Section 11 notice issued to third‐party taxpayers, giving them opportunity to object.
- Check whether the request falls into one of the Section 158(3) exceptions (prosecution, audit, recovery etc.).
- Evaluate “larger public interest” override only if prima facie case is made out.
- If neither exception applies, then you must refuse disclosure citing Section 8 and Section 158.
-
Legal advisors: If representing a client seeking or resisting disclosure, consider interplay of RTI Act and GST confidentiality regime; the decision provides a clear precedent that returns are not automatically accessible under RTI.