CHUNCHU SRI NARASIMHA RAO V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11478/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who operates a retail outlet under a dealership agreement with the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner challenged the respondent's demand for personal financial information, specifically income tax returns and bank statements, threatening to suspend fuel supply if not complied with. The court examined whether the respondent had the authority to demand such personal information and whether it was reasonable and lawful under the applicable constitutional provisions and agreements. The court's decision emphasized the protection of personal information against arbitrary demands by corporations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722034 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raju Sebastian v. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India, Dealership Agreement, Market Disciplinary Guidelines
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N HARINATH; S V S S SIVA RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: AVANIJA INUGANTI
• Keywords: Coercive Steps; Income Tax Returns; Personal liberty; Writ of Mandamus; Dealer Annual Returns
• Section: 8(1)

Judgement Text

"1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No.11478 of 2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “……to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in issuing notice vide emails dated 20.04.2023 calling upon the Petitioner to submit his personal information such as Income Tax Returns to the Respondent Corporation and threatening the Petitioner that supply of fuel to his retail outlet would be suspended from 01.05.2023 if he does not submit his IT Returns before 30.04.2023, without any authority as illegal, in excess of its jurisdiction, manifestly arbitrary, highhandedly capricious, unreasonable, unconscionable, flagrantly violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India, Dealership Agreement and Market Disciplinary Guidelines and consequently, to set aside the notice issued vide email dated 20.04.2023 and to direct the Respondents to not take any coercive steps against the Petitioner and his retail outlet pursuant to the notice dated 20.04.2023 and pass such other order or orders….” 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is operating respondent-Corporation’s retail outlet under the name and style of Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Filling Station in Chittinagar, Vijayawada. The respondent-Corporation entered into a dealership agreement with the petitioner on 25.02.2004. It is 2 the further case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation sent a notice through e-mail dated 20.04.2023 calling upon the petitioner to submit income tax returns for the Financial year 2020-21 on their online portal by 30.04.2023 or else threatened to stop supply of fuel to the petitioner outlet from 01.05.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Ms.Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1 and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned standing counsel for Indian Oil Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the authorities have no right to ask the income tax returns and also bank statement of the petitioner, which would affect the petitioner’s personal liberty. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information, Commissioner1, Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited2 and the judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case of Raju Sebastian v. 1 (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212 2 1990 AIR 1031 3 Union of India3 and prayed to consider the same and pass orders in that regard. 5. On the other hand, Sri S.V.S.Siva Ram, learned standing counsel for respondent-Corporation contended that, the respondent authorities have not asked any income tax returns or bank accounts of the petitioner and they are only asked Dealer Annual Returns (DAR). As such, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the record. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are insisting the petitioner to give income tax returns as well as bank statement, which affects personal liberty. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (1st cited supra), and also the circular under which the authorities sought the information therein is also same. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public 3 AIR 2020 KER 3 4 Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” 7. No doubt, the judgment supra relied on by the petitioner is applicable to the facts of the case. The authorities cannot insist to submit the income tax returns and bank statement. However, the learned standing counsel submitted that the authorities only sought for DAR, but not Income Tax and bank statements. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The respondent authorities are directed not to insist the petitioner for submission of bank statement as well as the income tax returns etc. However, the petitioner shall submit DAR to the authorities. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 03.05.2023 MP 5 286 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No.11478 of 2023 Dated : 03.05.2023 MP "