VEMURI SUNDEEP KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11020/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Vemuri Surideep Kumar, the dealer of Padmavathi Service Station, against the Indian Oil Corporation and other respondents. The petitioner challenged the legality of an email notice dated 20.04.2023, which demanded submission of personal information, including income tax returns, threatening suspension of fuel supply to his outlet if not complied with by 30.04.2023. The petitioner argued that such demands were unauthorized and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, as well as the dealership agreement and market disciplinary guidelines. The court examined the demands made by the respondent and found that only the Dealer Annual Returns (DAR) were required, not the personal income tax returns or bank statements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 678827 (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: S V S S S RAM; N
• Assessee Lawyers: AVANIJA INUGANTI
• Keywords: Income Tax Returns; Personal Information; Retail outlet; Writ of Mandamus; Fuel Supply Suspension; Dealer Annual Returns (DAR)
• Section: 14; 226; 21; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11020 OF 2023 Between: ...PETITIONER AND 1. ...RESPONDENTS i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. » 3. Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Represented by its Director, Indian UNION OF INDIA, Represented by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Room No. 204-B, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001. 2. Indian Oil Corporation, Represented by Chairman, Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased 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, high-handedly 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 Vemuri Surideep Kumar, Dealer of lOCL's retail outlet, Padmavathi Service Station, S/o. Vemuri Ravindra Babu, Aged 42 years, R/o. Plot No.21, KP Nagar, Near Mans Stella College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh fl Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali-Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. 4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada Divisional Office, Represented by its 520008 Head, Opposite Novotel Hotel, Blialatlii Nagar, Vijayawada 5. Indian Oil,Corporation, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State office. Marketing Division, Represented by its Executive Director, Fathebag, Moosapet, HP Road, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 500018. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 lA NO: 2 OF 2023 > Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. AVANIJA INUGANTI Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be . pleased to forthwith suspend the notice issued by the Respondent Corporation vide email dated 20.04.2023 . Respondents to not take any coercive steps against the Petitioner and his retail outlet pursuant to the notice dated 20.04.2023. Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to not suspend the supply of fuel to the Petitioner's retail outlet and to not suspend sales of Petitioner's retail outlet in pursuance of notice dated 20.04.2023. Counsel for the Respondent NOS. 2 to 5: SRI.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM, SC FOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION The Court made the following: ORDER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI.N.HARINATH, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 1 c THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI c WRIT PETITION No. 11020 of 2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition, is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 pf the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is 2. operating respondent-Corporation’s retail outlet under the name and style of Padmavathi Service Station in Plot No. 16 8b 17, 100 feet road. Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. The respondent-Corporation entered into a dealership agreement with the petitioner on 20.10.2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that the \" 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(l)(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 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. To the said Writ Petition, the respondent-Corporation filed preliminary counter opposing the same. 4. petitioner and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned standing counsel for 5. has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the authorities J 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 I judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information, Commissioner^, Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited^ and the judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case of Raju Sebastian v. f I ' (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212 2 1990 AIR 1031 Indian Oil Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. » Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what Heard Ms.Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the 3 Union of India^ and prayed to consider the same and pass . c orders in that regard. On the other hand, Sri S.V.S.Siva Ram, learned standing 6. the contended that. respondent-corporation counsel for bank accounts of the petitioner and they are only asked Dealer Annual Returns (DAR). As such, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered and draw the attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 7. that, the respondent authorities are insisting the petitioner to give income tax returns as well as bank statement, which affects his personal liberty. In the counter filed by respondent No.3, paragraph No.3 8. reads as follows: ’a ir 2020 KER 3 of the counter and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Perused the record. The short grievance of the petitioner is “It is humbly submitted that in terms of the circulars RO/6002 dated 24.12.2013, 09.05.2013 and 26.09.2022, the retail outlet dealers are required to furnish Dealer Annual Returns (DAR) where information such as the PAN details, Constitution type of the Dealer (Partnership/Proprietorship), Dealership Agreement information. Balance Sheet Details (to identify the. person who has employed capital in the business etc.), retail selling license details, bank account information (Banker’s certificate or any other respondent authorities have not asked any income tax returns or 4 9. A perusal of the counter, it shows that, the respondent authorities are not asking any income tax returns or bank statement of the petitioner.. 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 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: document certifying the person who is operating Ro’s bank account registered with Corporation) and details of the land as per the records. In fact, the Income Tax Returns are neither being sought nor the dealer is required to submit the Income Tax Return and the contentions of the petitioner are unfounded. It is also apposite and pertinent to submit that the information which is required to be furnished by the dealers as referred above are only for the purpose of ensuring that dealership is operating as per the approved set up and no personal information unconnected with the dealership is being sought. It is also submitted that only the balance sheet portion of the audit report, endorsed by the dealer in the DAR which is to check that no other person except appointed dealer has employed capital in the Retail Outlet business and the respondent company neither require nor is demanding the dealers to furnish the monetary transactions reflecting in the bank statement and in the Income tax return. ” “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 1 5 ( 10. The judgment supra relied on by the petitioner is applicable the income tax returns and bank statement, however, the learned . standing counsel, on counter, submitted that the authorities only . sought for DAR, but not Income Tax and bank statements. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and 11. taking the submissions of both the learned 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be 12. no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SEC 2. 4 ! To, 1. 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. ” IX Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT RJ^QISTRAR ■-------------------------- ! OFFICER Ministry of Petroleum .Union Of India, Natural Gas, Room No. 204-B, Shastri The'chainnan^ndian^Oi?Corporation, , Indian Oil Bhavan. G-9. Ali Yavar Jung 3 The%i?ector^lndTan O^ Co^oratSr? Marketing Division, Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. . Divisional Retail Head. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil pOHJoration Ltd., Vijayavyada Divisional Office, Opposite Novotel Hotel, Blialatlii Nagar, 5. Executive DireStor j'ndian Oil Corporation. Telangana and Andhra Pradesh State office. Marketing Division, Fathebag, Moosapet, HP Road, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 500018. 6. OneCCto Sri. Avanija Inuganti Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri.N.Harinath, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Advocate fOPUCl 8. One CC to Sri.S.V.S.S.Siva Ram Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies AL . to the facts of the case. The authorities cannot insist to submit counsel into HIGH COURT DATED:03/05/2023 } ORDER WP.No.11020 of 2023 I DISPOSING OF WP WITHOUT COSTS I • o q I "