Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging orders dated 03.03.2023, 31.03.2023, and 30.12.2024 passed by the Jan Mahiti Adhikari/Assistant State Tax Commissioner, the First Appellate Officer/Deputy State Tax Commissioner, and the State Information Commissioner, respectively. The petitioner had on 13.02.2023 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking GST returns from financial year 2008 to 2023 of six firms: 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, all located in Udgir, District Latur. The Information Officer issued notice to the firms, which objected to disclosure. The application was rejected. The petitioner appealed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Officer, who dismissed the appeals confirming the rejection. A second appeal under Section 19(3) before the State Information Commissioner was also dismissed on 30.12.2024. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that the GST returns are public documents and not personal information, and that the Information Officer was not required to seek consent from the firms. The respondents argued that the information sought was personal and confidential, exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The court held that the GST returns of the firms constitute personal information which has no relation to any public activity or interest, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any larger public interest warranting disclosure. The court also noted that the Information Officer correctly followed the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act by seeking the views of the third parties. The court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Exemption from Disclosure - Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, 2005 - Personal Information - GST returns of third-party firms are personal information not related to any public activity or interest - Held that disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the firms, and the petitioner failed to show any larger public interest - (Paras 7-9). B) Right to Information - Third Party Information - Section 11 RTI Act, 2005 - Procedure for Disclosure - Information Officer must seek consent of third party before disclosing information that may be confidential - Held that the Information Officer correctly issued notice to the firms and rejected the application after their objection - (Paras 4, 7). C) Right to Information - Second Appeal - Section 19(3) RTI Act, 2005 - State Information Commissioner's Order - Commissioner upheld rejection of information - Held that the Commissioner's order was justified and no interference warranted - (Paras 4, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether GST returns filed by third-party firms constitute 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and whether the Information Officer was required to seek consent of the firms before disclosing such information.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Information Officer, First Appellate Officer, and State Information Commissioner. The court held that the GST returns of the six firms constitute personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and the petitioner failed to establish any larger public interest. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(j)
- Section 11
- Section 19
- personal information
- third party information
- confidentiality
- commercial confidence
- public interest
- GST returns
