Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kajal Mazumder vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Kolkata Zone on 30 June, 2022

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                 के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/CCEKL/C/2021/607384

Kajal Mazumder                                         ....िशकायतकता  /Complainant
                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Assistant
Commissioner of Central
GST, Durgapur-II Division,
RTI Cell, S.R. Sarani, Durgapur,
Bardhaman-713216, West Bengal.                          .... तवाद गण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                    :   29/06/2022
Date of Decision                   :   29/06/2022

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on           :   30/12/2020
CPIO replied on                    :   21/01/2021
First appeal filed on              :   Not on record
First Appellate Authority order    :   Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated         :   NIL

Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 30.12.2020 seeking the following information pertaining to DUTTA CAR & COMPANY a Partnership Firm. In this regard, provide the information:
"...........On basis of what documents, declarations, applications and supporting, as submitted by the Applicant Firm through its Partners, was the GST 1 registration under registration number 19AALFD0291M1Z1 granted to the said DUTTA CAR & COMPANY for conducting of Retail Business as a Dealer of Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd at premises no 117 half Mile Post G.T. Road Old Court More Durgapur 3 w.e.f. 01.07.2017."

The CPIO replied to the complainant on 21.01.2021 stating as follows:-

".........the desired information may please be treated as 'NIL' as this office has not granted GST registration to M/s Dutta Car Company, Old Court More, Durgapur-3, as such verification of relevant documents appears to be not arise at this end."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Dr. Tanisha Dutta, Deputy Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
The Complainant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and urged that the requisite documents has not been provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that the reply provided to the Complainant was as per the availability of records. She further invited the attention of the bench to her written submissions filed before the hearing wherein the following was stated inter alia:
"2. From the data available in A-1-0 GSTN portal, it has been found that during pre-GST regime, M/s Dutta Car & Company was registered under Value Added Tax having Registration No. 19809254059, Date of Registration: -
20/03/2015.
3. After implementation of GST, M/s Dutta Car & Company was migrated to GST as existing tax payer having GSTIN No. 19AALFD0291M1Z1 with effective date of registration 01/07/2017.The GST registration has been granted by the GST Network as an existing assessee of VAT. They did not have to apply afresh for 2 obtaining GST registration, hence no application and related documents are available with this office.
4. Further during GST era, the grant of fresh GST registration is handled by Central Processing Cell of the Zone and it is not handled at Divisional level."

Upon being counselled by the Commission that the nature of the Complainant's argument is in the form of a grievance and not an issue that is amenable to the RTI Act, the Complainant agreed to have understood the matter based on the explanation of the CPIO's original reply tendered during the hearing.

Decision In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3