Central Information Commission
Ramesh D. Sarasia vs Chief Commissioner Of Custms & Central ... on 16 August, 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/CCEVD/C/2021/115156
Ramesh D Sarasia ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central GST and Excise Commissionerate,
Surat, RTI Cell, 6th Floor, Central Excise
Building-A, Opp. Gandhi Baug, Chowk Bazar,
Surat - 395001, Gujarat. ,.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/07/2022
Date of Decision : 11/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 22/02/2021
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/04/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Enquiry done by your office on basis of my complaint dated 07.12.2020, dated 22.01.2021, dated 23.01.2021
2. High Sea Sales Agreement between MIS CPS (Comprising of CPS Peripheral Division & CPS Technologies). Surat and SVNIT, Surat 1
3. Copy of Bill of Lading No. DC/FCLAHM/999446 Dated 06.01.2018
4. Copy Customs Duty Exemption Certificate produced by SVNIT
5. Copy of Bill Of Entry.
6 Copy of Declaration form.
7. Copy of Letter of Credit issued by Bank
8. Copy of Import License of SVNIT, Surat.
9 Copy of GST Exemption certificate produced by SVNIT
10. Also, provide copy of related documents which are submitted by SVNIT, Surat CPS xx Peripheral and Spark Technology, Surat."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the complainant on 22.02.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1. Enquiry has been conducted and no short payment of GST was found.
Point no. 2 to 10 : The copies of documents as sought for can not be provided as per section B (1) (d ) & ( e ) of the RTI Act,2005 as the contains related with third parties information and there is no larger public interest".
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a Complaint to the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Not present.
The Complainant reiterated the grounds of the Complaint as under:
"..the SVNIT has purchased 500 computers (HP PRODESK 600G3 PCI MT PC under CTH NO. 84713010 filed by SVNIT, Surat), worth Rs.2,69,50,000/-, (Two Crores sixty Nine Lacs and Fifty Thousand )
3. As per Asst.Commissioner's letter F.No. XlVl15612019 Dated 23.03.2020 clearly mentions the said institute, SVNIT is liable to pay 5% BCD and not NIL. 5% of the Rs.2,69,50,000/- amounts nearly to Rs. 13,47500 + PENALTY + INTEREST (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred + penalty +interest) 2
4. My RTI pertains to the payment of this tax, lf paid - receipt/Documentary evidence of the same. lf not paid - reasons justifying non-payment of the tax with certified documentary evidence
5. Also, if not paid, clearly implies tax evasion of the above stated amount by SVNIT.
6. SVNIT is an Educational institute is run and funded by Ministry of Education Dept,(formerly tVIHRD) and it is not a commercial establishment, thus there's no question arising of dispute of third party due to Sec 8(1)(d) & Sec B(1)(
e) as this query in no way hampers the competitive position of the third party of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property or the lnstitute.
7. Since the above amount accounts for tax collected goes into Government of lndia's revenue,which is used for the welfare of common public, this appeal is self explanatory why it is in the larger interest of the public."
In pursuance of the foregoing grounds, the Complainant argued at length and urged for the copy of the requested documents to be provided to him.
Decision The Commission at the outset invites the attention of the Complainant to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held that under Section 18 of the RTI Act no relief can be granted for access to information in the following words:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx 3 "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Now, as for the contentions of the Complainant against the reply of the CPIO for denying the copy of documents under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Commission does not find any scope of intervention as the CPIO has informed at point no.1 that no GST short payment has been found upon enquiry, thereby putting the claim of larger public interest in the disclosure of the information bearing commercial interest of the third party at a weak pedestal. Moreover, the CPIO's wisdom in the denial of the information does not suffer from any malafides to attract any penal or disciplinary action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
With the above observations, the Complaint is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5