Central Information Commission
Shri Amin Merchant vs Department Of Revenue (Tax Research ... on 18 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00555 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00776 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00890
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01433 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01434 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01435
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00024 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00025 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00026
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00027 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00028 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00029
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00042 Total : 13 Cases
Dated, the 18th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Amin Merchant
Respondents : Department of Revenue (Tax Research Unit)
These 13 second-appeals were filed by the appellant (Shri Amin Merchant) in respect of his 13 RTI-applications filed before the Tax Research Unit of the Department of Revenue, Union Ministry of Finance. Since all these appeals pertained to certain budget proposals and finance notification, among others, these were taken up for hearing by the Commission as a bunch on 04.05.2009 through videoconferencing. Appellant was present at NIC Studio at Mumbai. Respondents were present at the videoconferencing facility at CIC Office, New Delhi, from where the Commission conducted the hearing.
I. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000555:
2. In this second-appeal, appellant has questioned the decision of the respondents not to provide the information corresponding to his RTI-application dated 02.11.2007 (queries listed as 'a' to 'f') taken by the respondents ⎯ through CPIO's communication dated 22.11.2007 and the decision of the Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2008.
3. The context in which these queries have been raised has been stated in the preamble to the appellant's RTI-application as follows:-
"notification number 26/92-Cus dated 01.03.1992 was required to be issued ........ in the context of budget proposals....... announced by Finance Minister in the Lok Sabha on 29.02.1992."
4. Appellant's RTI-queries, therefore, are a series of interrogatories about 'hows' and 'whys' of that notification based upon his presumption that there was a discrepancy between the budget proposal and the finance notification.
AT-18052009-01.doc Page 1 of 8
5. Respondents have declined to disclose any information to him on the grounds that under the provisions of the RTI Act, appellant was not authorized to demand their explanations about presumptions which he has made about alleged discrepancies between the Budget and the finance notification. Appellate Authority has noted that answering the queries of the appellant the way these have been formulated "....would amount to asking the CPIO to make a subjective evaluation of an executive action taken by somebody else and share it with the appellant."
6. I am fully in agreement with the AA that the variety of the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI-application does not meet the test of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and cannot be authorized to be disclosed.
7. Appeal fails.
II. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000776:
8. This appeal is qualitatively similar to the previous appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00776. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 18.12.2007 (which was replied to by CPIO on 11.01.2008 and decided in first-appeal by the Appellate Authority on 05.03.2008), has enquired from the respondents as to the "duty of the executives of TRU Department to set the record straight by issuing suitable notifications deleting the goods falling under heading no.22.07, etc.".
9. Like the previous appeal, information in respect of this appeal as well has been declined on the ground of the queries not meeting the definition of 'information' set out in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
10. Appellant cannot be allowed to force public authorities to explain to him reasons for their actions and less so to confirm or deny his presumptions about correctness or incorrectness of their actions.
11. Respondents were within their rights to deny this information to the appellant.
12. Appeal fails.
III. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00890:
AT-18052009-01.doc Page 2 of 8
13. The nature of the query contained in appellant's RTI-application dated 02.01.2008 (replied to by CPIO on 28.01.2008 and decided in first-appeal by the Appellate Authority on 28.03.2008) is no different from the previous two appeals, viz.CIC/AT/A/2008/000555 and CIC/AT/A/2008/000776.
14. The query in this petition is in the nature of enquiring from the Tax Research Unit (TRU) as to when will it "issue a suitable notification to give effect to the rate of duty specified in the Budget proposal....".
15. The decision of the respondents not to provide this information to the appellant as the query does not qualify to be information as defined in Section 2(f), is upheld.
16. Appeal fails.
IV. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01433:
17. I'm generally in agreement with the Appellate Authority that the queries contained in appellant's RTI-application dated 21.07.2008 replied to by the CPIO on 25.08.2008 and by the Appellate Authority on 17.10.2008 go beyond the scope of the definition of information in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and, therefore, could not be authorized to be disclosed. However, parts of the information seemed to be specific and can be disclosed to the appellant.
18. Accordingly, it is directed that the following queries made by the appellant may be replied to within three weeks of the receipt of this order:-
Query at Sl.Nos.I(b) and II(b): Respondents shall inform the appellant whether or not any instructions as mentioned in these queries have been issued. If no instructions have been issued, it may be so stated to the appellant.
Query at Sl.No.III(a): As above, the information may be furnished if notification as requested by the appellant has been issued. If no notification or instruction has been issued, appellant maybe suitably informed.
19. Appeal partly allowed.
V. Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2009/00024, 25 & 42:
AT-18052009-01.doc
Page 3 of 8
20. These three appeals are related to appellant's RTI-applications dated 09.09.2008, 01.09.2008, and 18.9.2008.
21. These were replied to by the CPIO through communications dated 08.10.2008; 06.10.2008 and 29.10.2008. Appellate Authority's replies were dated 21.10.2008, 21.10.2008 and 01.12.2008 respectively.
22. Information has been declined to the appellant on the ground that his queries were all in the nature of seeking explanations and reasons, which did not fall within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Respondents, after examining the points brought up by the appellant, informed him that the Finance Act / Schedules to the customs tariff for the relevant years reflect the correct rate of duty and there was no error in rates of customs duty on compound alcoholic preparations for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for those years.
23. I find no infirmity in the replies of the Appellate Authority and the CPIO to the appellant, which I uphold.
24. Appeals are accordingly directed to be closed.
VI. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01435:
25. Appellant's RTI-application dated 16.07.2008 contained three items of queries. These were replied to by the CPIO through his communication dated 25.08.2008 and by the Appellate Authority on 17.10.2008.
26. Upon considering the submissions in this matter, I find that items of query at (a) and (b) merit a reply from the respondents as these are factual in nature and could be replied to in terms of whether these exist or they don't. These queries read as follows:-
"a. Has the TRU department issued any subsequent notification to delete sub-heading 2208.10 from the said notification no.26/92-Cus dated 1.3.92.
b. Kindly furnish the details of the amendments to the said notification no 26/92-Cus dated 1.3.92."
AT-18052009-01.doc Page 4 of 8
27. In case the information does exist, the related documents should be furnished to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
28. As regards item (c) in the RTI-application, I agree with the respondents that it scarcely qualifies to be information in terms of Section 2(f) and, therefore, could not be authorized to be disclosed.
29. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.
VII. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01434:
30. This RTI-application dated 06.08.2008, replied to by the CPIO on 12.09.2008 and by the Appellate Authority on 17.10.2008; is regarding file-notings in File No.345/42/2001-TRU. Although appellant has not done any service to his cause by using expressions such as incorrect, false, misleading etc. about the public authority's actions, yet considering the wording of this query, it should be possible to identify the information requested.
31. In consideration of all the submissions in this matter, it is directed that the file-notings in the above-mentioned file be provided to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
32. Appeal partly allowed.
VIII. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00026:
33. Through his RTI-application dated 01.10.2008, appellant has asked a series of queries regarding certain items of budget proposals for the years 1992-93, 93-94 and 94-95. He has asked for information relating to headings, number and/or sub-heading number under which certain goods were classified through the Customs Tariff Act and in terms of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) for the years 92-93, 93-94 and 94-95.
34. Respondents declined to disclose this information as it went beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
35. To say the least, these queries are rather curious. These reflect an attempt by the appellant to seek the consultancy or the advisery of the respondents about classification of goods following the application of the Budget proposals by the Parliament. A Department or a Ministry AT-18052009-01.doc Page 5 of 8 in the Government is not obliged to individually explain to any person seeking their advice in such matters. Under the Customs Act, there are procedures and systems which have been put in place for importers and exporters to make their claim about application of a certain rate of tariff based upon their understanding of the classification of goods. It is for statutorily constituted authorities under the Customs law to accept or reject the classification sought for their goods by importers / exporters. These are matters which relate to specifics of each transaction in the light of the notifications which are in place.
36. This variety of query most clearly does not qualify to be "information" under Section 2(f) of the Act.
37. In view of the above, I uphold the decision of the Appellate Authority.
38. Appeal fails.
IX. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00027:
39. This second-appeal of the appellant is related to his RTI-query dated 21.08.2008 replied to by the CPIO on 29.09.2008 and by the Appellate Authority on 21.10.2008.
40. The subject-matter of this query is as follows:-
"When will the TRU department respond to my letters dated 19th May 2008, 6th June 2008, 27th June 2008 and 5th August 2008 addressed to Shri Vivek Johri, Joint Secretary (TRU) Ministry of Finance, Room No.146-I, North Block, New Delhi-110 001."
41. Respondents have declined to disclose this information as it fails the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the Act.
42. However, in my view what the appellant has solicited is the status of the processing by the public authority of his letters quoted in his RTI-application. This Commission has authorized disclosure of information pertaining to the processing of communications received by public authorities from citizens.
43. Accordingly, it is directed that CPIO shall apprise the appellant within one week of the receipt of this order, about the status of the AT-18052009-01.doc Page 6 of 8 processing of the above-mentioned communications sent by the appellant to the public authority.
44. Appeal disposed of with this direction.
X. Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2009/00028 & 29:
45. Through his RTI-applications dated 30.09.2008 and 03.10.2008 corresponding to these two second-appeals, appellant has sought to engage the respondents in a dialogue regarding what he describes as "pinpoint [ing] and furnish [ing] the specific budget proposals relating to customs duties" and an explanation regarding how the public authority came to the conclusion that "the Finance Act / Schedule to the customs tariff for the relevant years correctly reflect the rate of customs duty applicable to goods falling under sub-heading 2208.10 namely, compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages".
46. I do not want to dwell on this variety of RTI-requests, which are aimed at seeking explanations from the public authority about 'hows' and 'whys' of their decisions. Appellant has all information in the form of the Budget and the Finance notification. It is now open to him to interpret it the way he wishes to and make appropriate claims before the authorities statutorily constituted for this purpose and persuade them to his point of view. He has appellate options open to him in case he is not satisfied by the actions of those authorities. He cannot be allowed to use the avenue of the RTI Act to establish an endless dialogue with the officers of the public authority about his assumptions, surmises and conjectures. RTI Act has no scope for such exercises.
47. Appeal fails.
General:
48. Having seen the series of appeals filed now and similar appeals filed by this appellant earlier, I notice that he is inclined to use the provisions of the RTI Act to question the public authority about the correctness of their actions based upon nothing more than appellant's own assumptions and surmises. In some cases, he may even be allowed to access the type of information he wishes but in most of these appeals and the RTI-applications, he seems to be querying the public authority about budget proposals, linkage between budget proposal and the finance notifications, specific tariff items and their link to the Budget AT-18052009-01.doc Page 7 of 8 and so on. Once the budget and the notifications are both out in the public domain, it is not open to applicants to quiz the public authority regarding their contents ⎯ not at least through RTI Act. They can no-doubt seek such clarifications about their genuine doubts but the avenue for this cannot be the RTI Act. The scope of an enquiry under the RTI Act is limited by the definition of information under Section 2(f) and all requests for information will have to satisfy the test of this Section.
49. Appellant, who appears to be an intelligent and conscientious citizen, may pursue his objectives in fora other than RTI Act which may be authorized to provide him the explanation he seeks.
50. The sense one gets from these queries is that the manner in which the finance notification(s) (to give effect to Budget proposal) are structured, a lot of grey area remains regarding how the entries in the notification relate to the approved Budget. Ministry of Finance ⎯ public authority ⎯ may examine if corrective steps can be taken to suitably modify the finance notification(s) as well as Tariff proposals to remove ambiguity about linkage of the tariff rates to approved Budget proposals / entries.
51. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-18052009-01.doc Page 8 of 8