A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CPIO is strictly directed to send a proper written submission justifying the invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act in the matter as well as a proper explanation for deputing an officer to represent the case who was not even acquainted with the fact

Appellant: Main gate entry details was not offered for inspection; hence, he did not go for inspection of the record - Respondent: Inspection was offered which was not availed till the date of hearing without disclosing the reasons - CIC: Reply upheld

Information on the Under Trial Prisoners like those who have spent more than 50% of their punishment period - Part data provided, some refused while the rest was not maintained - CIC: PIO can only provide information which is readily available in records

Has any Doctor of GDMO, Specialist or Teaching cadre working in Hospitals or any Health facility of Delhi government been granted 3 years of study leave? - CIC: Appellant may approach the concerned department/Hospitals to obtain the information

Registration documents - Respondent: Inspection of records was offered, but the Appellant did not appear - Appellant: Concerned official was not available to show the files - CIC: Provide complete point-wise information as per the available documents

List of examination center in Maharashtra for NTA NET was denied claiming that the information is not available in the form desired by the applicant - CIC: No relief as reply citing

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

Delhi High Court directs Jamia Millia Islamia University to disclose PhD Thesis under the RTI Act

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Copy of inquiry report of tax evasion complaint - Respondent: No CGST invasion was found after investigation - Appellant: Investigation may not have been done judiciously - CIC: If the complaint has been disposed of, the broad outcome should be provided

26 Dec, 2024

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2022 seeking the following information:

“Please inform me about the status of the inquiry into the tax evasion complaint number CBOEC/E/2022/06551 filed via the https://pgportal.gov.in/ The complaint is attached with this application”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.01.2023 stating as under:

“Please refer to your above mentioned application filed under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and transferred to this office by Headquarter Office, Ludhiana under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.12.2022. In this regard, CPGRAM Application filed vide No CBOEC/E/2022/06551 Dated 07.10.2022 was received in this office through Headquarter Office wherein it was directed to carry out necessary verification and submit report to Headquarter Office. Upon receipt of CPGRAM Application, necessary verification was carried out by this office. The findings of verification were communicated to Headquarter Office vide this office letter dated 14.12.2022. In this regard, copy of the same may please be obtained from Headquarter Office (Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana Commissionerate, F- Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana)”

The CPIO vide its letter dated 14.02.2023 has provided the sought for information stating that the bills pertaining to M/s. Murlidhar Jewelers (GST No. 03ABOPK01251B1ZF) have been verified by the CPIO and found to be genuine, apart from justifying rejection of information being exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Act.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 17.02.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO and further invoked Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Maharaj Saran Khanna, father and authorized representative of the Appellant present through Video-Conference.

Respondent: Shri Atul Sharma, Dy. Commissioner CGST present through VideoConference.

Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.

Authorized representative of the Appellant stated that the Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent. He stated that complete and correct information should be provided to him. He further contended that the information sought by him in larger public interest, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to obtain information under the RTI Act. Further, copy of inquiry report should also be provided to him.

The Respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Further, copy of inquiry report cannot be given to the Appellant under the RTI Act. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent apprised that no CGST invasion was found after investigating the TEP complaint. The representative of the Appellant submitted that the investigation may not have been done judiciously by the Respondent Public Authority, hence, he was seeking copy of the entire inquiry report.

Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO on the RTI application of the Appellant. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has not provided information to the Appellant, as the latter in his RTI application categorically asked for the action taken/status on his representation/complaint. But the Respondent wrongly denied the information to the Appellant, which is wrong and not as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

The Commission is of the view that the broad outcome of the action taken on the application/or status of the representation/complaint should have been informed to the Appellant under the RTI Act (as sought in the RTI application).

The Commission observed that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:

“6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.

7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."

8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.

11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question.”

In view of the above ratios, the Respondent is directed to inform the Appellant, the status of action taken on his representation/complaint (as mentioned in the RTI application) as on date of RTI application and its present status. If the said application/complaint/representation has already been disposed of, then the broad outcome should be provided to the Appellant, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Anubhav Khanna v. Office of The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ferozepur, File No: CIC/CCCEC/A/2023/610674; Date of Decision : 01.11.2024

Copy of inquiry report of tax evasion complaint - Respondent: No CGST invasion was found after investigation - Appellant: Investigation may not have been done judiciously - CIC: If the complaint has been disposed of, the broad outcome should be provided

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.