Central Information Commission
Puranchand Keshavdatt Mishra vs Chief Commissioner Of Custms & Central ... on 10 January, 2025
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/2023/647571
CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/650388
CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/651966
Puranchand Keshavdatt Mishra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Commissioner,
Central GST, Vadodara - I Commissionerate,
Central GST Bhawan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007
2. CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner,
Central GST & Central Excise
(Appeals), 1st Floor, GST
Bhawan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007
3. CPIO,
Asst. Commissioner, Central
GST & Central Excise, Surat
Commissionerate, Opp: Gandhi
Baug, Chowk Bazaar, Surat - 395001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2025
Date of Decision : 09.01.2025
Page 1 of 14
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/647571
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.10.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2023 (online) seeking the
following information:
"Legible copies of Pay Fixation Orders of the following Superintendents
(now Assistant Commissioners) of CGST on account of grant of 1st ACP,
2nd MACP and any other NFSG viz S/Shri.
1. BABU CA
2. CHHIKNIWALA JAYESH R
3. SANWARMAL CHETRAM
An amount of Rs.50 towards fee for the information is being transmitted.
In the case amount becomes deficient, I may be informed accordingly.
The scanned copies of the documents may also be sent on the email."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.08.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, the required information as asked in RTI application can
not be provided being third party information under Rule 8 (1) (j) of the
RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2023. The FAA
vide its order dated 13.09.2023, held as under:
"I have referred to the appeal dated 24.08.2023 of the appellant received
in this office 28.08.2023. I have also seen the RTI application dated
20.07.2023 of the appellant along with the following letters;
Page 2 of 14
(i) Letter F.No.IV/16-47/RTI-APP/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023 of the CPIO,
CGST & CE, Vadodara-I vide which the information has been called for
from the Chief Accounts Officer, CGST & CE, Vadodara-I.
Letter F.No. F.No.III/49-40/2018-19-CA dated 16.08.2023 of the Chief
(ii) Accounts Officer, CGST & CE, Vadodara-l. vide which the desired
information has been rejected under Rule 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005, being
third party information.
(iii) Letter F.No.IV/16-94/RTI-APP/2023-24 dated 18.08.2023 of the CPIO,
CGST & CE, Vadodara-I vide which reply has been given to the applicant.
(iv) Letter F.No.III/49-40/2018-19-CA dated 04.09.2023 received from the
Additional Commissioner (P&V), CGST & CE, Vadodara-l providing the
comments on the First Appeal of the Appellant.
Vide the letters referred above, I find that, out of the information sought
for by the applicant vide his aforesaid RTI application dated 20.07.2023,
the pay fixation and NFG order granted to Shri Babu C.A., Superintendent
(now Assistant Commissioner, Division-II) only pertaining to Vadodara-l
Commissionerate. The Pay fixation order of an individual officer purely
relates to personal information, which falls under Rule 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,
2005, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or
interest of larger public and it would cause unnecessary invasion of the
privacy of an individual.
I also find that the Pay fixation orders pertaining to an individual are not
available in public domain in any formation in India. Hence, the
contention of the appellant stating that the information otherwise is
available in public domain is completely factually incorrect. Further,
there is no larger public interest which would justify the disclosure of
such information. The appellant is stressing on the point that the pay
fixation order is supplied to different formations of the department
which does not give it the character of information available in public
domain and it is meant for internal circulation within the department.
Further, the supply of information by another CPIO, does not give the
appellant a right to access information which is purely personal and
related to particular individuals.
Page 3 of 14
Accordingly, I pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal dated 24.08.2023 filed by Shri PK Mishra against the CPIO/Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & CE, Vadodara-l's letter F.No.IV/16- 94/RTI/APP/2023-24 dated 18.08.2023 is rejected."
CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/650388 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 18.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 25.08.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 22.09.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.10.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Legible copies of Pay Fixation Orders of the following Superintendents (now Assistant Commissioners) of CGST on account of grant of 1st ACP, 2nd MACP and any other NFSG viz S/Shri.
1. BABU CA
2. CHHIKNIWALA JAYESH R
3. SANWARMAL CHETRAM An amount of Rs.50 towards fee for the information is being transmitted. In the case amount becomes deficient, I may be informed accordingly. The scanned copies of the documents may also be sent on the email."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.08.2023 stating as under:
"Please refer to your RTI request applications as mentioned in Col.(1) of below mentioned table transferred to this office under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 by office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Vadodara Zone vide letters as mentioned in Col.(2) of below mentioned table, with direction to supply the information directly to the applicant.Page 4 of 14
The required information in respect of the Appeals Commissionerate Vadodara is as mentioned in Col No.(3) of below table RTI Request No. and Transferred under section Reply Date 6(3) of RTI Act 2005, vide CCO's letter No. and date 1 2 3 CCEVD/R/E/23/00104 GCCO/RTI/APP/1521/2023 The information sought dated 20.07.2023 -TECH dated 27.07.2023 cannot be disclosed with section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/651966 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 23.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 23.08.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 03.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.11.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Legible copies of Pay Fixation Orders of the following Superintendents (now Assistant Commissioners) of CGST on account of grant of 1st ACP, 2nd MACP and any other NFSG viz S/Shri.
1. BABU CA
2. CHHIKNIWALA JAYESH R
3. SANWARMAL CHETRAM An amount of Rs.50 towards fee for the information is being transmitted. In the case amount becomes deficient, I may be informed accordingly. The scanned copies of the documents may also be sent on the email."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.08.2023 stating as under: Page 5 of 14
"Please refer to your RTI correspondence/application RTI Reg. No CCEVD/R/T/23/00104 dated 20.07.2023 for the information sought by you under the Right to Information Act 2005. This application has been transferred to this office under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 from CPIO/Assistant Commissioner, Vadodara Zone, Vadodara.
In this connection, the information sought in the RTI contain third party personal information and cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 03.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals on the following grounds:
"...6.1 At the outset, it would be pertinent to give some background about the information. The Assured Career Progression Schem [for brevity ACP] provided financial upgradation after completion of 12/24 years of regular service to the stagnating employees, which was purely personal to the employee and having no relevance to the seniority position. There was no additional financial upgradation for the senior employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay-scale under the ACP Scheme. The ACP Scheme was replaced by Modified ACP in the year 2009, which envisaged grant of financial upgradation after completion of 10/20/30 years of regular service. In terms of 6th CPC recommendations, Grade Pay was to be granted on completion of four years of service in the grade. Therefore, an individual recruited in the year 1992 would get first financial upgradation (ACP) in the year 2004. Suppose, an individual, who has been promoted to the next level in the year 2002, he/she would get NFG in the year 2006 and next upgradation (MACP) in the year 2016. In light of this, the appellant had requested only for three Pay Fixation Order [on account of ACP, MACP and NFG], that, too, for a limited period from 01.01.2004 to 01.01.2018. 6.2 It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgement dated 06.04.2022 in SLP No.2087-88 of 2022 filed by the UOI, has ordered stepping up of pay of senior officers at par with the junior officers in terms of FR-22. The Review Petition D.No.2034/2023 filed by the UOI, has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on 21.02.2023. Hence, the requirement of Pay Fixation Order to support the claim.
6.3 Since Shri Chhikniwala Jayesh R, Superintendent (now Assistant Commissioner), junior to the appellant, was drawing more pay than the appellant, a request was Page 6 of 14 made to supply the Pay Fixation Orders granted to him on account of ACP, MACP, NFG.
7. Section 2(f) defines "information" as any material in any form, including ... documents, ... orders ... contracts, 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. It means information relating to private body, which can be accessed by a public authority, falls within the ambit of 'information'. Therefore, such information has to be furnished. Even the Contracts, which contains sensitive data is also included within the definition of 'information'. Therefore, the learned FAA has erred in withholding the information. 8.1 It is respectfully submitted that the learned FAA has failed to appreciate the contents of proviso to clause (j) of Section 8(1), which stipulates that that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. A question arises that if the Parliament or State Legislature asks for such information, would the learned FAA deny the same. The answer is certainly in negative because Pay Fixation Orders merely contain the revised Pay Scale and do not contain any sensitive information such as total emoluments. If, at all, anyone desires to cause invasion of the privacy of an individual, he would ask for latest emoluments, perks, incentives, property details, investments, etc. 8.2 It is further respectfully submitted that Section 7(8) ibid mandates communication of reasons for rejection. It is relevant to note that except reproducing the provisions of law verbatim, no explanation has been furnished as to how disclosing of Pay Fixation Orders would be misused by the appellant and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Department/learned FAA is well aware that Pay Fixation Orders are required as documentary evidence for pay parity. It seems that the authorities have misconstrued the objective of RTI as right to refuse without analysing the issue. If this simple information is denied on the ground of personal information causing invasion, it is beyond comprehension as to what would remain in the RTI Act to be given to an applicant. If that is so, RTI Act would be rendered meaningless and redundant as every information would relate to someone. 9.1 The learned FAA has held that reply given by the CPIO that third party personal information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act, was proper. The learned FAA has also observed that disclosure of information to an unconcerned person may result in misuse of information. This allegation of the learned FAA is misplaced inasmuch as the appellant is very much concerned with the Pay Fixation Orders inasmuch as he hails from the same Department/Post/Grade and well aware of the approximate pay scale of the individual. Had the appellant been outsider, he would have asked sensitive data such as total emoluments, assets & liabilities, moveable & immovable properties, investments, income, memos, medical history, Page 7 of 14 trade or commercial secrets, ACRs, etc so as to attract the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act for denial of information.
9.2 It may further be respectfully submitted that Hon'ble Dr. DY Chandrachud, Chief Justice of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide paragraph 76 of his judgement dated 13.11.2019 (Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010), has held that Clause (j) of Section 8(1) is not an absolute exemption from the disclosure of information on the ground of privacy but states that disclosure is exempted in cases where personal information is sought and there exists no larger public interest.
9.3 The Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the matter of Appeal No. CICWB/A/2009/000529, where the applicant had requested for supply of copy of complete file/s (only as available in Supreme Court) inclusive of copies of complete correspondence exchanged between concerned constitutional authorities with file notings relating to appointment of Hon'ble Justices in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Commission, vide Order dated 24.11.2009, was pleased to order providing of information to the appellant therein within 15 days. Therefore, the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to quash the impugned order with a direction to furnish the information to the appellant. 10. The learned FAA has observed that the contention of the appellant that direct recruit juniors were drawing more pay than the seniors were deprived of any party under FR-22, does not hold ground as the Pay Fixation Orders are subjected to Audit/Inspection; and that in case of disparity noticed, would result into Audit Para/Query. This observation is misplaced inasmuch as the appellant has not suspected the correctness of Pay Fixation Orders. It is submitted that Pay Fixation Orders are not compared with one another. At the most, such Orders are subjected to scrutiny.
11.1 The observation of the learned FAA that Section 11 ibid does not cast an obligation on the CPIO to resort to third party procedure, is not correct inasmuch as before taking any decision, Section 11 of the said Act delineates a procedure viz giving written notice to the third person and considering submissions of the third party whether to disclose such information or not.
11.2 The learned FAA has held that order passed by the CPIO was in line with the decision in the case of RP Rohilla Vs PIO, Directorate General of Health Services [CIC/DTGHS/A/2018. It is submitted that said citation of the decision does not appear to be correct. The correct citation appears to be CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/126543. It appears that the said citation/decision has been inserted without studying its contents. Before citing any decision, its applicability to the facts and circumstances should have been discussed. It is submitted that the said decision of the Hon'ble Commission, instead of helping the learned FAA, it favours the appellant inasmuch in the said case it was held that the public at large has a right to know the truth and directed the respondent DGHS to furnish a chronological status report over progress of enquiry to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order.Page 8 of 14
12. It is respectfully submitted that learned FAA has failed to explain that if such Pay Fixation Orders are not supplied to the applicant to substantiate disparity in pay, how the anomaly will be cured. Will the sanctioning authority not ask for documentary evidence to compare the pay scale?
13. It is respectfully submitted that the learned FAA has not given any reason for overlooking uploading of Pay Fixation Orders carrying pay scales/matrix by CBIC on its website in violation of administrative hierarchy. Beside Order No.133/2023 dated 18.08.2023, granting Non-Functional Upgradation to Shri Bhupendra Pal Singh, Chief Commissioner, in pay scale of Rs.67,000-79,000 (with annual increment of 3%) and following few instances of uploading such Orders its website of CBIC [https://old.cbic.gov.in/TransferOrderldsController], following further sample instances were brought to the notice of the learned FAA to show that such orders are uploaded in public domain-
13.2 The learned FAA has failed to bring forth any instance of misuse or unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individuals whose orders are uploaded by the Board on its website. Therefore, the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to hold that the information cannot be denied to the appellant.
13.3 In fact, while advertising the posts, pay scales of the post(s) are mentioned together with other applicable allowances. Everyone in the organization or the public at large, know the pay of the employees. It is just for the sake of documentary evidence that these documents are required by the appellant. It is not as if the Page 9 of 14 appellant does not know the basic salary of the officer. By virtue of grant of ACP/MACP/NFG, the counterpart happens to be two or three increments ahead of the appellant. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that disclosure of the information would cause any unnecessary invasion of the privacy of an individual. It is submitted these documents are required to be submitted to the authorities to substantiating his claim for pay parity under FR-22. Had the learned FAA appreciated the purpose/objective, she would not have denied the information. Therefore, the CPIO/FAA has erred in rejecting the information.
13.4 It is respectfully submitted that CBIC has uploaded pay scales together with Pay Level as per 7th CPC right from Multi-Tasking Staff to Principal Chief Commissioner on its website. Therefore, disclosure of Pay Fixation Order would not cause any unwarranted invasion of the privacy. Therefore, observation of the learned FAA that the facts and circumstances in each RTI case may differ and that disclosure of identical information by another jurisdiction does not automatically entitle the applicant to receive the information, appears to be wrong. This observation of the learned FAA is contrary to the principles of uniformity, administrative discipline and hierarchy inasmuch as the Board itself has been uploading such information on its website. Therefore, a divergent view was not warranted.
14.1 The learned FAA has also observed that larger public interest was not involved. It is submitted that such senior employees, who are deprived pay parity constitute at least 25% of the total strength in the grade of Inspector [approximately 20,000] Thus, 25%rd of the employees are affected in the matter of pay parity. Therefore, larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. 14.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 78 of its judgement dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010, has held that public interest has no relationship and is not connected with the number of individuals adversely affected by the disclosure which may be small and insignificant in comparison to the substantial number of individuals wanting disclosure. It will vary according to the information sought and all circumstances of the case that bear upon the public interest in maintaining the exemptions and those in disclosing the information must be accounted for to judge the right balance. Public interest is not immutable and even timegap may make a significant difference.
15.1 It is submitted that the Ahmedabad Zone of the Central GST Commissionerates have supplied identical information in respect of the officers posted there. Since the pay of junior officers may vary on account of grant of upgradation on different dates, the appellant wishes to utilise the best Pay Fixation Order. Therefore, a divergent view was not called for. Judicial discipline requires uniformity of judgements. The learned FAA could not have taken a divergent view to deny the information. Perhaps, there is no penalty for taking wrong decisions. Either Board, by uploading such Page 10 of 14 orders, or the learned FAA by refusing such information, is committing wrong. Therefore, Hon'ble Commission may like to order furnishing of the information 15.2 It is submitted that in the case of AS Mallikarjunaswamy, the applicant had requested for service particulars of his counterparts working under same employer, which was denied to him citing Section 8(1)(j) ibid. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, vide its judgement dated 22.08.2023 in WP No. 23695/2022 in the case of AS Mallikarjunaswamy, held that as the petitioner was not a stranger to the respondent institution, there was no scope for invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Act; that needless to say that for redressal of grievances in service, the employee has to keep complete service record of other employees, especially when a dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like; and that the petitioner is justified in contending that unless the service details of the persons sought by him in the RTI Application are furnished, he will not be in a position to act on his complaint in the service matter. In the present case, the appellant is no stranger to the Central GST Department and the details are required by the appellant for pay parity at par his juniors under FR-22.
15.3 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, has, beside awarding cost of Rs.5,000 towards expenses, also imposed penalty of Rs.1000 for each day of delay for failure to furnish service particulars of the persons concerned and copies of records in that connection within a period of three weeks.
16. It is respectfully submitted because of denial of information, besides incurring expenses, the appellant has also suffered in terms of mental trauma and agony."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent No. 1 & 2: Ms. Shital Jadeja, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO along with Shri Jagdish Talatiya, the then CPIO present through video-conference. Respondent No. 3: Shri Nathu Singh Mangawa, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO, CBIC present through video-conference.
The Commission is in receipt of a written submission dated 25.12.2024 from the Appellant in each case, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"I thankfully acknowledge receipt of Notice of Hearing bearing File No. No. CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/651966, CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/650388, Page 11 of 14 CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/647571 dated 10.12.2024 intimating the date of hearing fixed for 06.01.2025. In this context, I respectfully submit that I shall attend the hearing fixed for 06.01.2025. However, in case of any unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, if I am not able to attend the hearing, I request that the case may be decided on the grounds mentioned in my appeal/complaint dated 16.11.2023.
In view of the submissions, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner may be pleased to allow the appeal/complaint directing the Department to provide the information.
It is further respectfully prayed that exemplary personal penalty may be imposed on the CPIO and learned FAA for denying information on flimsy grounds."
A written submission dated 30.12.2024 filed by Shri Nathu Singh Mangawa, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO in case file No. CIC/CCEVD/A/2023/651966 is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...In this connection, this office is still relying the views of the Order-In Appeal No. 03/2023-24 dated 03.10.2023 issued by Smt. Charul Lata Singh Joint Commissioner/ First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005, CGST & Central Excise, Surat.
Further it is submitted that information sought by the applicant contains third party personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. and the officers are not working in this office i.e. HQ. CGST & Central Excise, Surat, hence, records not available."
Respondents initially reiterated their stand for denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, Ms. Shital Jadeja, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO clarified that from a perusal of contents of Second Appeals she came to know that appellant was one of the employees of their organization who has retired from the service, which he had not disclosed in his RTI application or First Appeals and yet without such disclosure, he sought copy of pay fixation orders of various officers of the Respondent Public Authority. Since, the third party denied to part with their information under Section 11 of the RTI Act, therefore, information was denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.Page 12 of 14
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was non-receipt of entitled benefits as like other similar officers which is the genesis of these matters.
Here, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has sought personal information i.e. service-related records of third-party officer which attracts applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission further notes that where the information of any officer of the same department is sought by the applicant to strengthen/defend his own service matter, then bar of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not applicable in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023 with the following observations
-
"...5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to NC: 2023: KHC:29928 reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order...."
In view of the applicability of above ratio in these cases, exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not available and hence, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of each RTI Applications and provide a revised reply along with requested information pertaining to third party officers as sought in the Page 13 of 14 RTI application, to the Appellant, free of charge, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeals are 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, Office of the Pr. Commissioner, Central GST, Vadodara - I Commissionerate, Central GST Bhawan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise (Appeals), 1st Floor, GST Bhawan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Surat Commissionerate, Opp: Gandhi Baug, Chowk Bazaar, Surat - 395001 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)