Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging orders passed by the Jan Mahiti Adhikari (Assistant State Tax Commissioner), the First Appellate Officer (Deputy State Tax Commissioner), and the State Information Commissioner, which had rejected his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner had sought copies of GST returns filed by six firms from Udgir, Latur, for the financial years 2008 to 2023. The Information Officer issued notices to the firms, which objected to disclosure. Consequently, the application was rejected. The petitioner's first appeal under Section 19(1) and second appeal under Section 19(3) were also dismissed. The petitioner argued that GST returns are public documents and not personal information, and that the officer should not have sought consent from the firms. The respondents contended that the information was confidential and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The court held that GST returns contain commercial and financial information of third parties, which is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is demonstrated. The petitioner failed to show any public interest. The court also noted that the officer correctly followed the procedure under Section 11 by issuing notice to the firms. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Exemption from Disclosure - Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, 2005 - Personal Information - GST returns filed by third-party firms are held to be personal information relating to commercial confidence and trade secrets, exempted from disclosure unless larger public interest is shown. The court upheld the rejection of the RTI application seeking GST returns of six firms, as the information was not shown to serve any public interest. (Paras 1-6) B) Right to Information - Third Party Information - Section 11 RTI Act, 2005 - Procedure - The Information Officer is required to issue notice to the third party before disclosing information that relates to or has been supplied by the third party and is treated as confidential. The court held that the officer correctly followed the procedure under Section 11 by seeking objections from the firms before rejecting the application. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether GST returns filed by third-party firms constitute 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether the Information Officer was required to seek consent from the firms before disclosing such information.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned orders dated 03.03.2023, 31.03.2023, and 30.12.2024 are upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(j)
- Section 11
- personal information
- third party information
- confidentiality
- GST returns
- public interest
