Skip to main content

Demanding Information About Bank Accounts & Income Tax Returns, Without Statutory Backing, Violates Right To Privacy

In W.A.Nos. 2112 & 2118 of 2018, appeal was filed before the Kerala High Court against the judgment of the single bench wherein the objection of several petrol pump dealers against the petroleum companies demand for disclosure bank account details and income tax returns were disallowed. The dealers had claimed that such demand is violation of right to privacy.

Referring to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India : (2017) 10 SCC 1, the division bench said observed that the said judgment said held that any action by the State or its agencies which curbs or restricts the right to privacy of a citizen shall pass each of the following three tests: (1) test of legality, that is, such action must have a legislative or statutory basis (2) test of need and necessity, that is, such action  shall serve a definite purpose in public interest and (3) test of proportionality, that is, such action shall be at the minimum level required to achieve the object.

In answer to the issue whether details of bank accounts constitute private and personal information, the bench referring to District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank : AIR 2005 SC 186) &  Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India : (2011) 8 SCC 1, held that There can be no doubt with regard to the fact that details of the bank account of a person constitute personal and private information. The statement of account of a person in a bank would reveal the amount in deposit in the bank and the amounts deposited and withdrawn in the past. It would give a clear picture of a person's financial capacity. It would disclose the cash transactions which a person had with third parties. It would reveal the amount transferred to and received by a person from another. It may show the loans availed of by a person from the bank. Habits of a person, his life style, his association with other persons and many other personal matters can be deduced from a close scrutiny of his bank account for some period. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that details of the bank account of a person constitute personal information and that any demand made to disclose such information amounts to infringement of his right to privacy. Privacy attaches to the person and not the place where the information is kept.

Further, in Girish RamchandracDeshpande v. Central Information Commissioner: (2013) 1 SCC 212, in the context of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, the Apex Court has held that, the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are personal information. Therefore, A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person.

Therefore as per the bench, the demands of the oil companies did not pass the tests laid down in the K.S.Puttaswamy judgment.

Finally, in reply to the contention of the oil companies that the demands have been made to ensure safe practices and marketing discipline and that no retail outlet is being conducted on benami basis, the bench observed that the tests of necessity and proportionality need not be considered when the demand made for furnishing the information does not pass the test of legality.





Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more