Namaste DOST. 🙏

In an age where transparency is celebrated, one recent judgment reminds us that even openness has its legal boundaries.

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), in Adarsh Pimpare vs. State of Maharashtra (decided on 14th October 2025), examined a rather interesting question: 

Can a citizen use the Right to Information Act (RTI) to access GST returns of private businesses in the name of public interest?

What followed was a clear reaffirmation of where tax privacy begins and transparency ends.

Background: The Citizen’s RTI Query

Adarsh Pimpare, a resident of Latur, filed an RTI application seeking GST return details of six local firms from 2008 to 2023.

He alleged that these businesses had obtained government tenders fraudulently and evaded taxes. To verify his suspicions, he wanted their GST filings disclosed by the State Tax Department.

The department, acting as the “Jan Mahiti Adhikari” (Public Information Officer), issued notices to the concerned firms under Section 11 of the RTI Act, giving them a chance to object. The firms denied consent, citing confidentiality of their tax data.

The RTI Officer, the Appellate Authority, and later the State Information Commissioner all upheld this objection.

Unhappy with this, Pimpare approached the High Court, arguing that GST returns are public documents and that seeking them serves the public interest.

⚖️ High Court’s Findings: Privacy Over Public Curiosity

Justice Arun Pedneker carefully analyzed two intersecting laws:

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005, which promotes transparency but also protects personal and third-party information under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11.

2. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 158, which expressly prohibits disclosure of tax returns except in limited, lawful circumstances.

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481), which held that:

“Where information sought is personal or third-party in nature, disclosure can occur only when larger public interest outweighs the harm caused.”

Applying this, the Court observed that GST returns are third-party confidential information. Under Section 158(1) of the GST Act, such particulars “shall not be disclosed” except under sub-section (3) — which permits sharing only in narrowly defined situations such as prosecution, audits, or official investigations.

Because the petitioner offered only bald allegations without concrete proof of fraud, the Court found no overriding public interest justifying disclosure.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

“GST being a special and later enactment overrides the RTI Act. Returns furnished under GST cannot be disclosed to third parties unless permitted under Section 158(3).”

🔍 Analysis: Why the Court’s Logic Makes Sense

This case reaffirms a key principle in administrative law — the balance between transparency and confidentiality.

While RTI empowers citizens to demand accountability, it was never intended to expose private taxpayer data. The logic is simple:

• Tax filings contain sensitive commercial information — turnover, purchase data, and supplier details — disclosure of which could harm business competitiveness.

• The GST Act provides a self-contained mechanism for enforcement, audits, and prosecution. Allowing parallel scrutiny through RTI would bypass statutory safeguards.

• “Public interest” is not equivalent to public curiosity. Unless there is substantiated evidence of wrongdoing, privacy prevails over suspicion.

In short, Section 158 of the GST Act acts as a confidentiality firewall, ensuring that tax information is used only for legitimate governmental purposes — not for fishing inquiries by unrelated individuals.

📌 Key Takeaways for Professionals and Citizens

✅ 1. GST Returns Are Confidential Documents.

They cannot be accessed under RTI unless it falls under exceptions listed in Section 158(3) of the GST Act.

✅ 2. Public Interest Must Be Proven, Not Presumed.

Mere allegations of fraud or corruption are insufficient grounds. Documentary proof or investigative interest by a competent authority is required.

✅ 3. Officers Must Follow Proper RTI Protocols.

If information concerns third parties, Section 11 notice is mandatory — allowing those affected to object before disclosure.

✅ 4. Tax Departments Should Educate Officers and Citizens Alike.

Misunderstandings between RTI transparency and statutory confidentiality often lead to unnecessary litigation. Awareness can prevent this.

✅ 5. Confidentiality Promotes Trust in Compliance.

Businesses are more likely to file accurate returns when assured their data won’t be misused or publicly disclosed.

🌐 Why This Matters

This judgment draws a clear boundary between transparency and privacy in the digital tax ecosystem.

At a time when data is easily shareable, protecting taxpayer confidentiality is essential for maintaining trust in the system.

For professionals, it also serves as a caution: RTI cannot be a backdoor for investigation or competitive intelligence.

Any genuine suspicion of fraud should instead be reported to the appropriate enforcement authority, not pursued through information requests meant for transparency in governance.

Conclusion

The Adarsh Pimpare case is a timely reminder that not all information in government custody is public information.

Transparency remains a pillar of democracy, but so does privacy — and tax laws walk this fine line carefully.

As we navigate India’s maturing GST regime, let’s remember:

“Openness is a virtue, but confidentiality is a duty.”

Stay compliant, stay confident. 🙏

References:

1. Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Judgment dated 14 Oct 2025 — Citation: 2025-TAXSCAN (HC) 2105

2. CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481.

3. Section 158, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — “Disclosure of information by a public servant.”

4. Sections 8(1)(j) & 11, Right to Information Act, 2005 — Exemptions for personal and third-party information.