Central Information Commission
Yudhishthir Agrawal vs Directorate General Of Goods And ... on 6 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443
Yudhishthir Agrawal ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asstt. Commissioner,
CGST, Division Jahangirpuri,
Delhi North Commissionerate,
17-B, IAEA House, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024
Date of Decision : 26.11.2024
Date of SCN hearing : 02.02.2026
Date of SCN Decision : 05.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.05.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's : Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 01.05.2023 seeking the following information:CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 1 of 10
"With reference to (a) your office letter of information under RTI Act, dated 26.08.2022(copy enclosed) and (b) letter dated 28.02.2023 (copy enclosed) of M/s Subina Exports, the Applicant prays for supply of following information/documents:-
(i) Date on which aforementioned letter dated 28.02.2023 of Subina Exports was received in the office of Addressee.
(ii) What action has been taken by the Dy./Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CGST Division and his office staff on the said letter? Date wise progress on action taken may please be communicated.
(iii) Whether any letter has been issued by the Addressee in response to letter dated 28.02.2023 of M/s Subina Exports?
(iv) Whether pending refund has been given to the party Subina Exports? If not, what is reason thereof?
(v) Whether interest on delayed refunds are being given and has been given in any case so far. If yes, in how many cases interest on delayed refund has been granted?
(v) Inspection of relevant files pertaining to the matter of subject refund may be allowed."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 19.11.2024:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar, Inspector and Shri Shaminder Singh, DEO present in person.
The Commission has passed the following observation and directions on 26.11.2024:
"From the perusal of the records, it has come to the attention of the Commission that till date no response was given to the Complainant on his RTI application. The written submissions of the Respondent states that reply was given to the Complainant on 19.11.2024 but there is nothing on record to show that any reply was given to him. Merely stating that reply was given on 19.11.2024 does not suffice the purpose under the RTI Act.CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 2 of 10
Further, no reply was given to the Complainant initially i.e. within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the concerned PIO is neither present in the hearing nor given his explanation/submissions for his absence. It seems that the office of the Respondent Public Authority has no seriousness in dealing with the RTI applications of the applicants, as this approach tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission by not appearing in the hearing, as it violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the Respondent.
In view of the above, inaction on the part of the present PIO and the then PIO are prima facie established as it seems that the said RTI application was not at all dealt with and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Commissioner, present PIO and Shri Rakesh, Deputy Commissioner, the then PIO of Respondent Public Authority as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, for obstructing the information with mala fide intention qua the instant RTI Application, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent is further advised to give point-wise reply/information to the Complainant more specifically point No. 5 as per his above-mentioned RTI application, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance with this order."
Relevant Facts emerged during Show-Cause proceedings held on 02.02.2026 The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent: Shri Rakesh, Dy. Commissioner/CPIO; Shri Balmick Chakarvorty, Assistant Commissioner/Present CPIO and Shri Gautam Kumar Yadav, Inspector, appeared in person.
1. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply has already been provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 19.011.2024, contents of the same are reproduced as under:CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 3 of 10
"Please refer to your RTI Application dated 01.05.2023 received in this office on 02.05.2023 on the above cited subject.
(i) Letter dated 28.02.2023 of Subina Exports was received on 01.03.2023 in this office and the said letter was taken on record.
(ii) Necessary action was by the then CPIO. (iii) No. (iv) Yes. (v) No. (vi) Not applicable."
2. Shri Balmick Chakarvorty, Assistant Commissioner/Present CPIO has filed a detailed written submission dated 02.02.2026, contents of the same are reprocured as under:
In pursuance, to serving the Show cause Notice
a) Shri Rakesh, DC, now posted as Specified Officer, SEZ Moradabad attend the Hearing and has also filed a reply to the Show cause Notice.
b) Shri Sanjiv Kumar Choudhary, AC, (Retd), was not able to attend the Hearing due to unavoidable circumstances. He has informed on whatsapp, that his neice Ms Sadhna has expired due to heart failure and he was at her funeral. He had enclosed the photo at the last place of rites. The screenshot of the message is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
Further, the Hearing was attended by the undersigned (present CPIO), and as directed by the Hon'ble Commissioner Information the following is submitted.
1. It was directed to elaborate the reply filed to the RTI application dated 01/05/2023. The point wise reply is elaborated as follows.
Point No 1. The aforementioned letter dated 28/02/2023 was received on 01/03/2023 in this office.
Point No 2. The then Deputy Commissioner has already informed the RTI applicant vide letter dated 25/08/2022, that " in response to email dated 28/07/2022 received from CGST Delhi Zone regarding refund of M/s CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 4 of 10 Subina Exports, Payment Advice were prepared and Generated Bills on PFMS and the same has been forwarded to PAO, CGST, Delhi on 25/08/2022. Thus, action was already taken by then the CPIO and no further action was warranted at this end.
Point No 3. NO, letter was issued as the earlier CPIO vide letter dated 25/08/2022 (dispatched on 26/08/2022) has already informed the Applicant.
Point No 4. All refund of M/s Subina Exports was sanctioned and disbursed.
Point No 5. No Interest was paid to M/s Subina Exports.
a) As per guidelines, all refund are to be attended and sanctioned appropriately as per merits within 60 days of the refund application received. All refunds are being promptly with due diligence is attended by the Refund Sanctioning authority.
b) As per records, No interest has been paid on the refund amount by this Division for last 1 year.
c) However, if the delay is caused the Claimant is eligible for refund with interest under section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017. In case, the Refund Sanctioning Authority, does not sanction interest for delayed payment, the Claimant can file an Appeal against the said Refund Order and claim the Interest.
Point No 6. Only Payment Advice has been issued by then the CPIO. The refund s sanctioning Authority is the State GST Authority. As per record and process involved, No files were being constructed only for payment Advice, which was online.
The concerned State GST, who have sanctioned the refund, may be in possession of the Refund files, wherein the merits and eligible refund is examined, calculated and sanctioned. Therefore, the same was not applicable.
CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 5 of 102. Further also find enclosed an explanation submitted by Shri Rakesh, Deputy Commissioner, now posted as SO, SEZ Moradabad. Vide his reply he has submitted that "that the Second Appeal/Complaint dated 07.08.2023 was received in Division Jahangirpuri after he had already been relieved from his duties on 04.08.2023, and therefore, the matter did not remain under my administrative control thereafter. It is further submitted that no communication was received by him regarding appearance before the Hon'ble Commission on the date of hearing, i.e., 19.11.2024, which explains my not attending the Hearing in the CIC."
"that the refund in the matter was delayed due to a technical glitch in the system as the payment advice did not reflect on the system, as the system was newly introduced. He also submits that the Refund order was issued and sanctioned by the State GST authorities on his refund application, because the Assesse was under the administrative control of state authorities. The said Refund Sanction order, did not have any interest part, therefore we were not authorise to pay any amount including interest over and above the sanctioning amount by the authority.
'that in view, of the above practical and system operating technical glitches and difficulties, the delay caused was inadvertently. He has requested the Hon'ble Commissioner Information, to condone the delay caused and request not to impose any penalty"
Copy of the letter addressed to the Hon'ble Commissioner Information is enclosed.
Further, the undersigned, would like to the bring to the kind information of the Hon'ble Commissioner Information, the following procedure then followed for refund of GST portion.
1. The GST portion consists of two parts Central GST and State GST tax. Further for interstate supplies and exports and imports there is IGST.
2. The Refund Claimant has to file the Refund Application with the jurisdiction administrative controlling GST authorities.
3. The Jurisdictional Administrative GST Authority examined the said Refund Application and passed the Refund Sanction for the amount of CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 6 of 10 Refund eligible to be refunded. The Sanctioned refund order mentions each of the amount sanctioned, CGST, SGST, IGST, Cess and Interest.
4. The refund of the portions of the Tax was disbursed accordingly, in case of IGST and CGST by the Central GST authorities and SGST by the State GST Authorities.
5. In the present case the state GST authority has passed the Refund Sanction Order, while they disburse the SGST Tax Amount. The said Refund Sanctioned Order is then communicated to CGST Authority for issuing Payment Advice and then forward to PFMS, only for the amount sanctioned.
6. The Payment advice issuer does not have any authority to alter or amend the said Refund Sanction Order.
7. No interest portion was mentioned in the Refund Sanction Order and hence NO interest was paid to the claimant.
8. In case of the administrative control under Central GST Officer, the Refund Sanctioned Order was issued by them and then forwarded to the State GST Authority to issue Payment advice for the relevant SGST portion of Tax to be refunded.
In view, of the complex technical situation, then there were profound technical glitches and the Refund Sanction Order were lost in system transfer.
Therefore, the delay caused was not intentionally but due to system glitches and therefore it is prayed to the Hon'ble Commissioner Information that the delay caused be condoned.
Therefore, your Honour Commissioner Information may appreciate that there was also no mala fide intention on part of the Officials, as the action was already taken and was informed to the RTI Applicant by the then CPIO vide letter dated 25/08/2022, as brought in above.
In view of the afore explanations, we humbly request that No penalty be imposed on the then CPIO's who attended to their duty with sincerity as brought on records.
CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 7 of 103. Shri Rakesh, Dy, Commissioner, Moradabad Special Economic Zone, vide letter dated nil submitted to the Commission as under:
2. I have now been informed by the Assistant Commissioner, Division Jahangirpuri, vide letter dated 29.01.2026, received by me on WhatsApp, to appear before the Bench of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, at Room No. 313, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067, on 02.02.2026 at 11:50 AM, in the matter pertaining to RTI Order dated 26.11.2024 in Second Appeal dated 07.08.2023, filed by the applicant Shri Yudhistir Agrawal, bearing File No. CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443.
3. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the Second Appeal/Complaint dated 07.08.2023 was received in Division Jahangirpuri after I had already been relieved from my duties on 04.08.2023, and therefore, the matter did not remain under my administrative control thereafter. It is further submitted that no communication was received by me regarding appearance before the Hon'ble Commission on the date of hearing, i.e., 19.11.2024, which explains my not attending the Hearing in the CIC.
4. It is also submitted that the refund in the matter was delayed due to a technical glitch in the system as the payment advice did not reflected on the system, as the system was newly introduced. I also want to submit that the Refund order was issued and sanctioned by the State GST authorities on his refund application, because the Assesse was under the administrative control of state authorities. The said Refund Sanction order, did not have any interest part, therefore we were not authorise to pay any amount including interest over and above the sanctioning amount by the authority.
5. In view, of the above practical and system operating technical glitches and difficulties, the delay caused was inadvertently. I request the Hon'ble Commissioner Information, to condone the delay caused and request not to impose any penalty.
Decision:
4. The Commission, after careful consideration of the facts on record, the submissions made during the show-cause proceedings and the written explanations furnished by the concerned officers, notes that a point-wise reply to the RTI application has since been provided to the Complainant. The Respondent has explained that the delay in responding was occasioned due to CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 8 of 10 administrative transitions, technical glitches in the refund processing system and the fact that the matter involved coordination between Central and State GST authorities. The Commission also takes note of the submission that the then Deputy Commissioner had already taken action on the underlying issue and that the present CPIO has elaborated the replies during the show-cause stage.
5. In the absence of any material on record to establish mala fide denial of information or deliberate obstruction, and considering the explanations tendered by the officers concerned, the Commission is of the view that the delay, though undesirable, does not warrant penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The explanations appear plausible and indicative of procedural and systemic constraints rather than intentional suppression of information.
6. Accordingly, the show cause notices issued to the then PIO and the present CPIO are hereby dropped. However, the Commission cautions the Respondent Public Authority to ensure strict adherence to the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act and to deal with RTI applications with due diligence and seriousness so as to uphold the spirit of transparency and accountability.
The matter stands 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, CGST, Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST HQ, Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 9 of 10 CIC/DGSTX/C/2023/133443 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)