Central Information Commission
Kshitij Dutta vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Panchkula ... on 4 October, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/639792
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/640099
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/640104
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/640106
Kshitij Dutta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner
Central Goods & Services Tax
Commissionerate Panchkula
Sector-25, Panchkula - 134116
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of
CGST Commissionerate, Faridabad,
RTI Cell. CGST Bhawan,
Block-C & D. New CGO Complex
NH-IV, Faridabad-111001
CPIO,
Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST
Gurugram
RTI Cell, 2nd Floor GST Bhawan
Plot No. 36/3, Sector 32
Gurugram-122001
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of
CGST Commissionerate Rohtak
RTI Cell, Second Floor Pacific City Centre
1
Near Jat Bhawan, Delhi Road,
Rohtak-124001
CPIO, CGST Division, Panchkula
CPIO, CGST Division, Kurukshetra
CPIO, CGST Division, Karnal
CPIO, CGST Division, Yamunanagar
CPIO, CGST Division, Rohtak
CPIO, CGST Division, Hisar
CPIO, CGST Division, Bhiwani
CPIO, CGST Division, Sirsa
CPIO, CGST Division, Sonepat .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 04/10/2022
Date of Decision : 04/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The instant Appeal(s) are clubbed together for decisions as these are based on
similar subject matter of information sought by the same Public Authority.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
File NO RTI Dated CPIO Reply First appeal FAA order Second appeal
dated dated dated
639792 15/04/2021 03/05/2021 04/06/2021 05/07/2021 29/08/2021
640099 15/04/2021 13/05/2021 07/06/2021 30/06/2021 31/08/2021
640106 15/04/2021 18/05/2021 04/06/2021 11/06/2021 31/08/2021
640104 15/04/2021 19/05/2021 04/06/2021 29/06/2021 31/08/2021
642741 17/05/2021 04/06/2021 04/06/2021 15/07/2021 14/09/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.04.2021 with the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Panchkula Zone seeking the following information:
"Total GST deposited by MULTI SYSTEM OPERATORS in Haryana firm wise from month wise July 2017 till date along with the name of the firm GST number and complete address in the prescribed format FORMAT ATTACHED.2
LIST OF MSOs REGISTERED IN HARYANA DATED 12.04.2021 WITH THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING IS ATTACHED FOR REFERENCE"
Case wise CPIO replies and FAA order(s) as under:
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/639792 The CPIO, CGST Panchkula Zone transferred the RTI Application to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner(CPIO),CGSTDivision,Panchkula/Panipat/Ambala/Kurukshetra/Karnal/Yamun anagar.
The CPIO, CGST Division, Panchkula furnished reply to the appellant on 03.05.2021 stating that 'the information called for by you is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005.' The CPIO, CGST Division, Kurukshetra furnished reply to the appellant on 05.05.2021 stating that 'the information cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005.' The CPIO, CGST Division, Karnal replied on 15.06.2021 stating that the information is not maintained by their office but Appellant can inspect the available records.
The CPIO, CGST Division, Yamunanagar denied the information on 30.06.2021 under Section 8(1)(d); (j) & (h) of the RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2021. FAA's order dated 26.02.2021 upheld the replies of the CPIOs.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/640099 The CPIO, CGST Commissionerate, Rohtak furnished a reply to the appellant on 13.05.2021 incorporating a tabular chart of total taxes paid for the period from July 2017 to Match 2021 and also stated that "the details i.e Name, GST No., address and their revenue etc. regarding firms it is to submit that being third party data, these details cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, accordingly, it cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2021 stating as under:
3"Rohtak Provided incomplete misleading or false information Bhiwani No Response within the time limit Sirsa No Response within the time limit Hisar No Response within the time limit Sonepat No Response within the time limit"
FAA's order dated 30.06.2021 directed the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate Rohtak to transfer the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned divisions.
Subsequently, the CPIO, CGST Division, Rohtak provided the following information on 28.07.2021:
"In this connection, it is informed that only 01 Multi system operator pertaining to this office as per list, details of which were provided by you vide your RTI application dated 15.4.2021 and seeking information regarding total month wise GST deposited by these operators.
M/s Amba Cable Network, 190/20, Sainipura, Rohtak (GSTIN No. 06AVMPS1641N1Z2) information is as under:-
XXX"
Similarly, the CPIO, CGST Division, Hisar provided the following information on 23.07.2021:
In this connection, it is informed that only 3 Multi system operators pertain to this formation as per list, details of which were provided by you vide your RTI application dated 15.4.2021 and seeking information regarding total month wise GST deposited by these operators. Being third party data to be provided, all 3 operators were contacted by this office vide letters dated 5.7.2021 under section 11 of the RTI Act with request to make their submissions as to whether the information asked by you should be disclosed or not.
In response to the communication made by the undersigned, these 3 operators vide their communications have reported that:
M/s Sona Cable Network, Hisar.
The party vide their communication/mail dated 06/07.07.2021 have requested that his information regarding GST should not be disclosed to anyone (third party) under RTI.4
M/s Babu Matu Nath Cable Network, Hisar The party vide their communication/mail dated 07.07.2021 have submitted that the information relating to them may not be disclosed to you.
M/s Sun Cable Networks, Hisar The party vide their communication/ mail dated 06.07.2021 have communicated that all information regarding Sun Cable Network may be provided to you under Right to Information Act, 2005 and shown his agreement.
In view of the above, the undersigned has decided to provide the following information in respect of M/s Sun Cable Network, House No. 17, Ward No.8, Street No.5, Rajiv Nagar, Distt. Hisar (GST No. 06AKYPR4233J2ZI) only:
xxx As regards information relating to M/s Sona Cable Network, Hisar and M/s Babu Matu Nath Cable Network, Hisar, it is to submit that being third party data, these details cannot be provided under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The CPIO, CGST Division, Bhiwani provided a reply on 20.07.2021 incorporating the details of total GST deposited by MSOs falling under their jurisdiction and also stated that "the details i.e Name, GST No., address and their revenue etc. regarding firms it is to submit that being third party data, these details cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, accordingly, it cannot be provided.":
The CPIO, CGST Division, Sirsa provided the information on 29.07.2021 as under:
"In this connection, it is informed that only 3 Multi system operators pertain to this formation as per list, details of which were provided by you vide your RTI application dated 15.4.2021 and seeking information regarding total month wise GST deposited by these operators. Being third party data to be provided, all 3 operators were contacted by this office vide letters dated 2.7.2021 under section 11 of the RTI Act with request to make their submissions as to whether the information asked by you should be disclosed or not.
In response to the communication made by the undersigned, these 3 operators vide their communications have reported that:
M/s Durga Cable Network, Village- Baragutlha, Dist- Sirsa. The party vide their reply dated 29.07.2021 have requested that his information regarding GST should not be disclosed to anyone (third party) under RTI.5
M/s Sanjay Cable Network, Near Ramlila Ground, Bhuna, Fatehabad The party vide their reply dated 27.07.2021 have denied to share their details stating that 'we didn't even start our system. So do not send this GST form to us in future.' M/s Sai Cable Network, VPO Bhattu Kalan, Fatehabad.
The party vide their reply dated 27.07.2021 have communicated that his information regarding GST should not be disclosed to anyone (third parry) under RTI."
The CPIO, CGST Division, Sonepat has provided the information on 29.07.2021 as under:
"In this regard, it is informed that the following four units pertains to this office out of the MSO's provided by you.
(i)Sunder Digital Cable Network
(ii) Mahadev Cable Network
(iii)Jai Durga Cable Network
(iv) Star Cable Network Out of four mentioned above, three units mentioned at S.No. (i) to (iii) have denied in written to provide data in respect of their units and as regards to unit mentioned at S.No.
(iv), there is no data retrieved on GST portal. Therefore, this office is unable to provide the information as a per Section 11 of RTI Act."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/640106 The CPIO, CGST Commissionerate, Gurugram furnished reply to the appellant on 18.05.2021 stating as follows:-
"The information asked for is hereby rejected Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,2005 which states that "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."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2021. FAA's order dated 11.06.2021 observed as under:
6"I find that the CPIO has not given any justification for denial of information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, I observed that the information sought by the appellant is not relates to any personal information, public activity or interest or invasion into the privacy of the individual and accordingly CPIO reply dt.15.05.2021 denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) was not correct.
In in view of above, I pass the following order:
6. The CPIO is directed to provide the information as is available on records through the concerned CGST offices."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GSTPZ/A/2021/640104 The CPIO, CGST Commissionerate, Faridabad furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.05.2021 stating as follows:-
"On the basis of replies received from all the concerned sections of this Commissionerate, it is to inform you that the information sought by you is in the nature of personal information/ third party's trade/commercial secrets which are exempted under Section 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, no larger public interest has been justified by the party, hence the information sought is denied."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2021. FAA's order dated 30.06.2021 observed as under:
"I have carefully gone through the records available as well as appeal grounds submitted in appeal application and personal hearing held on 25.06.2021. It is observed that the CPIO vide order dated 19.05.2021 had rejected the subject RTI under Section 8(1) (d) & 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. I observe that clause (d) bars information relating to Commercial Confidence'or Trade Secret or Intellectual Property etc. The desired information does not pertain to any of the aforementioned fields. Similarly clause (j) talks about prohibition regarding 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 into the privacy of the individual. I find that the CPIO has not given any justification for denial of information under Section 8(1) (d) & 8 (1) 0) of RTI Act, 2005, Further, I observe that information sought by the appellant does not relate to any personal information or interest 7 or invasion into the privacy of the individual and accordingly CPIO reply dated 19.05.2021 denying of information under Section 8(1) (d) & 8 (1) (j) was not correct."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Dinesh Raj, Dy. Commissioner & CPIO, CGST Panchkula Zone; D S Chauhan, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, CGST Commissionerate Rohtak present through video conference along with Y Shahjahan, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, CGST Commissionerate Gurugram and Kishan Singh Meena, Superintendent & Rep. of CPIO, CGST Commissionerate Faridabad present through intra-video conference.
Dinesh Raj, Dy. Commissioner & CPIO, CGST Panchkula Zone submitted that the CPIOs under their zone have denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. He further invited the attention of the bench to his written submissions wherein the following was stated:
"Grounds for Denial of Information:
4. Section 8 (1)(d),(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly provides for not giving the information, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship and information which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Further, filing the complaint does not amount to serving the larger public interest as any citizen is free to file complaints as they see fit.
5. If such a sensitive information as the amount of tax deposited by private companies is provided to the complainant in the present case, then it would be tantamount to allowing every citizen unrestricted access to the information about the amount of tax deposited by private companies which may be used to harm the competitive position of a third party which is clearly forbidden u/s Section 8 1(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. Further, in the case of Sahil Chauhan Vs PIO, the complainant, vide RTI application dated 27.03.2017, sought information regarding VAT(now GST) returns made by M/s Ariba Hardware and other traders. He sought TIN number; copy of balance sheet, cash book, stock 8 register, returns filed and other related information on 11 points. Hon'ble CIC in its decision dated 01.10.2018 held --
"The Commission is not inclined to admit the present complaint since the queries of complainant are aimed at securing third party information...".
The decision of the worthy Information Commissioner is squarely applicable in the present issue.
7. Further, the information sought by complainant is private and held in fiduciary capacity by our department and hence exempted under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
8. Further, in a Decision dated 13.11.2019 in case of Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, in para no. 59 Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined personal information and the relevant part of the judgement is reproduced below:
"Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly professional records including qualification, performance, evaluation ACRS, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, reports, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
The Appellant argued that while the Rohtak Commissionerate has provided him with partial information, the Faridabad and Gurugram Commissionerate(s) have provided him with complete information, therefore the denial of the information by the other CGST divisions is not appropriate.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that concededly the information sought for in the RTI Application relates to various third parties, disclosure of which may harm their competitive position as envisaged under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act as under:9
"(d) 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;."
Further, adverting to the reliance placed by the CPIO on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra), it will not be out of place to deem the said information as being personal to the third parties as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Similarly, the fact that some of the Commissionerate(s) or Division(s) have provided partial or complete information will not have a bearing on the decision of the other CPIOs to deny the information under the applicable exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10