Central Information Commission
Deepak Suresh Pednekar vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 13 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBECE/A/2022/150065
Deepak Suresh Pednekar ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL
GOODS, SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL
EXCISE-SURAT COMMISSIONERATE,
RTI CELL, OPPOSITE GANDHI BAUG,
CHOWK BAZAR, SURAT-395001, GUJARAT. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/06/2023
Date of Decision : 12/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 09/03/2022 & 25/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 12/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 13/05/2022
Second Appeal dated : 09/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"Information regarding (9) nine false E waybills were generated by Shri Mukesh Poonamchand Ganchi. Pro Shree Mahalaxmi Trading co. Surat, Gujarat 1 request letter dt. 09.11.2021 was sent by regd post on 12.11.2021 and request letter dt 04.01.2022 was given on 05.01.2022 by H/D. The report of False E-way Bills submitted to Mukund Court copies are enclosed.
Xxx It is requested to verify the correct facts of Generation of False E way bills amounts and False IGST amount From GST portal . please confirm payment particulars of Gst amount whether he made payment."
The CPIO, CBDT, Surat has transferred the RTI Application to the CPIO, Joint Commissioner of State GST on 09.03.2022 for further necessary action.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.03.2022 stating as under:
"Since M/s. Mahalaxmi Trading Company having GSTIN No.24BXDPG8194CIZL, to 27BEWPP7632AlZ5 is under the supervision of State GST, the matter has been transferred to the Joint Commissioner of State GST, Division-8, Nanpura, Surat for further necessary action."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 13.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, 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: S. N. Chaudhary, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant raised the following grounds in the instant Appeal -
"...1. Complaints against 9 Nine False E way Bills for cashew Nuts were generated by Shri.Mukesh Poonamchand Ganchi,Propriter Add Shri. Mahalaxmi Trading Co., Shop No.2, Maruti Complex shastri Road, Bardoli, Dist- Surat 39500 Gujarat were made on 09-11-2021 and 05.01-2022 to the commissioner CGST and Excise Surat opp Gandhi Baug Chowk Bazar Surat 395001. As reply of the c.se/Matter was not received from his office Applications under RD Act 2005 was made on 24-02-2022 2
2. The CPIO, Deputy Commissioner CGST & C. Excise Commissionerate Surat has informed vide his File No. XIX/001/2022 Surat dt 2S-03-2022 that M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Company having GSTIN no. 24BXBPG8194CIZL to 2713EWPP7632Al25 is under the supervision of State GST Div.8 the matter/case has been transferred to the Joint Commissioner of State GST Division 8 Nanpura Surat for further necessary action on 08-02-2022 and No reply received from him. An appeal was filed on 16-04-2022 to the Shri. Chunaram Add. Commissioner CGST& C. Excise, Surat Commissionerate 2nd floor Central Excise Bldg. Chowk Bazer Surat 395001 Gujarat.
xxx
4. As No reply has been received from the Joint Commissioner of State GST Division 08 Nanpura Surat 395001 Gujarat An Appeal is being Submitted before the Chief information Commissioner Central Information Commissioner New Delhi 110067 for Immediate necessary action please.
6) please arrange to investigate the matter/case of Base 9 nine E way Bills of cashew Nuts generated by Mukest Poonamchand Ganchi Prop . of M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Co. Bardoli Surat having GSTIN No 24BXDPG8194CaL Amounting to Rs. 2,65,89,344 and IGST Amount Rs. 12,65,860 through the Joint commissioner of State GST Division 8 Nanpurna Surat 395001 immediately and through The commissioner CGST & C. Excise Surat Commissionerate chowk Bazar Surat - 395001 Gujarat.
7) Investigation report to be submitted Mulund Court Mumbai for further necessary action for case No .SW/48/2021 filed at Mulund Court u/s 156(3) ..."
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 08.06.2023 whereby he put forth his arguments by stating as under -
Shri Deepak Suresh Pednekar (Proprietor of Suresh Kokan Kaju Production having GSTIN-27BEWPP7632A1Z5) had made a complaint dated 09.11.2021 against Shri Mukesh Poonamchand Ganchi (Proprietor of M/s. Shree Mahalaxmi Trading Co. - GSTIN-24BXDPG8194C1ZL) for false E-way bills generation. The complaint was originally sent to the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CE, Mumbai East by the complainant.
As per GSTIN portal, M/s. Shree Mahalaxmi Trading Co. having GSTIN- 24BXDPG8194C1ZL is registered at "Shop No.-08, GF, Soham Complex, Shastri Road, Bardoli, Surat, Gujarat, 394 601 which is under the supervision of state 3 authorities and falls under the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Division-8, C-3, Multistoried Building, Nanpura, Surat 395001. Therefore, the said complaint was forwarded to the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Division-8, C-3, Multistoried Building, Nanpura, Surat 395 001, and a copy of the same had been forwarded to the Principal Commissioner , CGST & CE, Mumbai East in reference to his letter F. No. CGST/ME/AE/Gr-C/CCO dated 10.12.2021 for his dated 08.02.2022 (copy enclosed for kind ready reference). This information was provided by CP10, CGST & CE, Surat vide letter dated 25.03.2022 in response to RTI dated 28.02.2022 filed by Shri Deepak Suresh Pednekar."
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to any specific information per se as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance for investigation in the matter/case of Fake 9 nine E way Bills of cashew Nuts generated by Mukest Poonamchand Ganchi Prop. of M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Co. Bardoli Surat as detailed in the above preceding paragraphs. Also, the information entails verification of the correct facts of Generation of False E way bills amounts and False IGST amount From GST portal as also confirmation of the payment particulars of GST amount. Such issues are outside the scope and mandate of RTI Act.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the response of the CPIO is in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question, as the Appellant is actually not seeking any information but is seeking queries.
For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information 4 which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more 5 parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the instant case.
However, the Appellant is advised to pursue the matter with the concerned State Authorities as advised by the CPIO.
Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of the hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पं जीयक
िदनां क /
6