Central Information Commission
Lokesh Agarwal vs Chief Commissioner Of Custms & Central ... on 16 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/135940
Lokesh Agarwal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asst. Commissioner, Central GST &
Customs, Division IV, Vadodara - II, Central
GST Bhawan, Subhanpura,
Vadodara - 390023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.11.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 05.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 08.05.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 4
"1. Copy of details / extract of PLA/RG23 Register maintained by M/s. J. R. Corporation having Excise Registration No. AAGFJ1565MEM002 for receiving the goods from M/s. Aimery Global Tradelinks LLP.
2. Copy of extract of PLA/RG23 Register of M/s. J. R. Corporation for payment of excise duty on the goods dispatched to M/s. Aimery Global Tradelinks LLP, vide L/R No.001 dated 23/07/2017 and L/R No.002 dated 23/07/2017 of M/s. AArzoo Transport, Mangusar. Vadodara.
3. Copy of extract of receipt and dispatch of M/s. J. R. Corporation between 23/06/2017 to 31/07/2017 maintained by firm under your control."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.06.2023 stating as under:
"Information sought through your RTI application is covered under section 8(1)(d) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information may not be disclosed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 21.07.2023, held as under.
"The information sought is a personal / private documents and hence CPIO/ Assistant Commissioner, Division-IV, Vadodara-II was not under any obligation to provide the same."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, CPIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent CPIO and the FAA did not apply their mind while denying the information. The appellant stated that he is partner of M/s Aimery Golbal Tradelinks, LLP and as supplier, they supply goods to M/s. J. R. Corporation (assessee). He stated that the information sought was related to transactions whereby fraud was committed with him by Page 2 of 4 the said company registered with respondent department. The appellant stated that he had not sought any personal information of any third party.
The respondent, while defending their case inter alia reiterated the CPIO's reply 05.06.2023 and the FAA's order dated 21.07.2023. The respondent further submitted that information sought was not maintained by them nor the assessee ever filed PLA/RG-23 register while filing the returns in the old Central Excise regime as it was not mandatory. The information sought was purely personal, commercial secrets in nature and the department cannot force the assessee to provide the same to the department.
The respondent submitted that the assessee simply filed GST return with them. They stated that there is no mechanism at the division level to seek information from the assessee and to furnish the same to the applicant under RTI. Moreover, it is a fiduciary relationship between the department and the assessee, the disclosure of the same is exempted under RTI Act. Therefore, exemptions under Section 8(1)(d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act were claimed in this matter.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought information regarding M/s. J. R. Corporation which the respondent has denied under section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent during the hearing submitted that information sought was not maintained by them and the assessee never filed PLA/RG-23 register while submitting GST return in the old Central Excise regime because it was not obligatory. The respondent stated that only the GST return was filed with them and the same was available with them. The appellant in his RTI application has not sought copies of the GST return filed by M/s. J. R. Corporation.
It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act that is available and exists in the form as is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Central Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority. The reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Page 3 of 4 the order dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has observed as under:
"35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............."
In view of the above observation, the Commission finds that the submissions made by the respondent is in consonance of the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. Commissioner, Central GST & Customs, Division IV, Vadodara - II, Central GST Bhawan, Subhanpura, Vadodara - 390023 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)