Central Information Commission
Suneeta Virmani vs Directorate Genenral Of Gst ... on 19 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DGSTI/A/2017/609398-BJ
Ms. Suneeta Virmani
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
AVP - Legal
Goods & Service Tax Network
4th Floor, Worldmark 1, East Wing
Asset 11, Hospitality District, Aerocity
New Delhi - 110037
2. CPIO
Goods & Service Tax Department
Centre Jurisdiction: (Range - 40)
5th Floor, Tower - II, Jeevan Bharti Building
Janpath Road, Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2019
Date of Decision : 19.06.2019
Date of RTI application 18.10.2017
CPIO's response 27.10.2017
Date of the First Appeal 31.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 03.11.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 04 points (A to D) regarding the certified copy of all GST Returns along with the Annexures for GST Number mentioned in the RTI application submitted by her Ex-spouse Mr. Vikas Virmani; certified copies of all sources of his income from where GST had been collected / deposited with the department & the amount collected / deposited along with the details of invoices, etc. Page 1 of 6 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.10.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.11.2017 while contesting the decision cited by the Appellant in the matter of Prashansa Sharma vs. Delhi Transco Limited dated 03.02.2015, relied upon the decision of the Commission in the matter of Sneha Agrawal vs. PIO, Northen Railway, DRM's Office dated 17.10.2017, and further denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Suneeta Virmani;
Respondent: Mr. M. Shadaab, AVP - (Legal) & CPIO arrived late;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and correct information had not been furnished. She further relied on her written submission. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 10.06.2019, wherein it was stated that the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the information sought was a life related information and the same was expedient and essential to determine the quantum of maintenance in a maintenance case u/s 125 Criminal Procedure Code, titled as Suneeta Virmani Vs. Vikas Virmani pending before Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the right to maintenance was a basic human right and this right to live with basic needs cannot be violated on the premises of being a third party information. Reliance was placed on Para 25 of the case Prashansa Sharma Vs Delhi Transco Ltd. No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000433, decided on 03.02.2015. The Appellant further submitted that the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that ex-wife was also entitled for maintenance as per the definition of wife explained in Rohtash Singh Vs. Smt. Ramendri, II (2000) SLT 385 = AIR 2000 SC 952. Thus, it was prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2017/27.10.2017 of the First Appellate Authority & CPIO respectively and to direct the First Appellate Authority/concerned CPIO to supply full and correct information as sought in the RTI application dated 18.10.2017. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent appeared before the Commission and apologized for the delay in arrival. The Respondent further referred to its written submission. The Respondent handed over a copy of the written submission dated Nil, wherein while narrating the background of the matter, referred to Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and submitted that being personal information of the third party, information sought was denied as also there was no relation to any public activity or interest in disclosure of information and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, hence, information was denied. A reference was made to the decision of the Commission in the matter of Sneha Agrawal vs. PIO, Northen Railway, DRM's Office dated 17.10.2017. It was further submitted that GSTN maintains data of taxpayers in fiduciary relationship. The disclosure of information in such cases was debarred under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further referred to Section 158 of Central GST Act, 2017, bars disclosure of particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts of documents produced. Hence, the information sought could not be disclosed u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 read with Section 158 of CGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the decision of the Commission in the matter of Prashansa Sharma vs. Delhi Transco Limited dated 03.02.2015, and the decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kusum Sharma vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma dated 14.01.2015, relied upon by the Appellant was contested point-wise. It was further submitted that most of the information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application did not pertain to their jurisdiction.Page 2 of 6
The Commission was also in receipt of an e-mail dated 17.06.2019 wherein it was submitted that information sought could not be provided since the GST No. fell under the State Jurisdiction, and the GST No. fell under the jurisdiction of Range 166, Nehru Place Division as per the address of the Assessee. Hence, it was requested to forward the notice to the concerned Range Officer i.e. Range 166, Nehru Place Division.
The Commission noted that a similar subject-matter had been heard and adjudicated by it in Appeal No. CIC/CCEDL/A/2017/609472-BJ dated 14.05.2019 wherein the direction was given to the FAA and Jt. Commissioner to re-examine the RTI application and inform the Appellant about the generic details of net taxable Service Tax collected and deposited with the department by her husband within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. It was further informed by the Appellant that in compliance with the direction of the Commission order dated 14.05.2019, the desired information had been received by her.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information Page 3 of 6 relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein on similar issues regarding disclosure of Income Tax Returns and its details, it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
Page 4 of 6The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
However, making a distinction with the said judgment of the Apex Court in G R Deshpande's matter, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting.
Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Page 5 of 6 Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts as also the decision of the Commission in Appeal No.CIC/CCEDL/A/2017/609472-BJ dated 14.05.2019, the Commission instructs the FAA to re-examine the RTI application and inform the Appellant about the generic details of net taxable GST collected and deposited with the department by her husband, pertaining to their Department, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 19.06.2019
Copy to:
1. Dr. Abhishek Gupta, Executive Vice President (Support) & First Appellate Authority, Goods & Service Tax Network, 4th Floor, Worldmark 1, East Wing, Asset 11, Hospitality District, Aerocity, New Delhi - 110037 Page 6 of 6