Central Information Commission
S Paulraj vs Directorate General Of Goods And ... on 13 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGSTX/A/2022/151217
S Paulraj ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Goods and Services Tax Network,
RTI Cell, 4th Floor, World Mark 1,
East Wing, Asset 11, Hospitality District,
Aerocity, New Delhi-110037. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/06/2023
Date of Decision : 12/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 21/06/2022 & 12/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 06/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 05/09/2022
Second Appeal dated : 19/10/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"Sub: Information required about the Annual Turnover filed in Income Tax Return and GST E-Filing under the RTI Act 6(1) of 2005.1
1) Number of Notices issued for the Mismatch of Annual Turnover under Income Tax Returns filed and GST Returns of E-Filing under GSTR-1 together with Mismatch Amounts for the financial years 2018-19 to 2020-21.
2) Quarterly wise GST ITC filed under GSTR-3B from 1.7.2017 to 31.3.2022.
3) Quarterly wise GST Amount filed under GSTR-1 from 1.7.2017 to 31.3.2022.
4. Quarterly wise GST collection amount from 1.7.2017 to 31.3.2022.
5. Quarterly wise GST ITC amount allowed under GST Tran-1 and GST Tran-2 to adjust towards the GST amount filed under GSTR-1."
The CPIO, GST Council Secretariat, New Delhi transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, GST Network, New Delhi on 21.06.2022 for furnishing the information directly to the applicant.
The CPIO, GST Network furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 12.07.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1, 2 & 3:
The information sought by RTI applicant at Sr. No's. 1 to 3 cannot be provided under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 for reason as below stated:
Being not readily available with GSTN, substantial amount of time and effort would be required along with disproportionate diversion of resources of public authority to collect and compile the sought information, hence the same cannot be provided under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 4:
The information sought by RTI applicant vide SI. No 4 is already available in public domain & the same can be accessed at below mentioned link-
https://www.gst.gov.in/download/gststatistics Point No. 5:
The information sought by RTI applicant vide SI. No 5 is vague and not specific therefore, same does not constitute "material" information within the 2 meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further as there is no clarity w.r.t what sort of website maintenance proof applicant is seeking, GSTN cannot furnish any comments upon the same.
The hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Aditya Bandyopadhyay & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 had observed as under:
"A public authority is also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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 RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2022. FAA's order dated 05.09.2022 replied revised pointwise to the Appellant stating as under:
"Point No. 1:
Regarding the information No.1, I have not sought for the collection amount of GST under the notices issued for the mismatch of Income Tax Return Turnover and E-Filing Return Turnover under GSTR-I, being accounted into the collection amount of GST under information No.4 or accounted into a separate account. I have sought only the information about the mismatch amount arrived and the number of notices issued for it. It should be noted that PAN and GSTIN are interlinked. Being not readily available information with GSTN and fetching it under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005, leads to the failure of the E- Filing system adopted by the GSTN in GST implementation.
Point No. 2,3 & 5:
Regarding information No. 2, 3 and 5, the information arc related to the E- Filing data filed by the E-Filers of regular type to the GST Portal. The information sought by me under S. No. 5 is related only to the Goods for which the GST ITC allowed by the GST Portal under GST Tran-i and GST Tran-2 to adjust towards the GST payment of the E-Filers. It is not the information about the GST ITC claimed by the E-Filers. It should also be noted that the information is valid only for the period from 1.7.2017 to 31.3.2020 as per the GST Tran-1 and GST Tran-2 forms and hence it is not vague under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
The information sought by me under S.No.2 and 3 are related to the tax on Goods and Services filed by the E-Filers under GSTR-I to calculate the GST to be 3 adopted by the above category (a) of the E- Filing system of Regular Type. But as per the formula for GST calculation under the above category of (a) the value addition tax should have been arrived by subtracting the ITC allowed in GSTR-3B, GST Tran-1, GST Tran-2 from the tax on the outward supply filed in GSTR-1, while the Services does not lie under value addition. That is regarding the goods, there is no proper calculation for GST by value addition in the E Filing system. Hence without maintaining the data under the information of S. No. 2 and 3, the E-Filing system is a failure one in the category (a) adopted by the GSTN in GST implementation. Therefore, fetching the information of S. No. 2 & 3 under Section 7 (9) of RTI Act, 2005 is not acceptable.
Point NO. 4:
So far as the information sought, it is observed that the requested information is already available in the public domain and the CPIO has shared the relevant link to access the same."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Rajesh Tripathy, CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that desired information against points no. 2, 3 & 5 has not been provided by the CPIO till date. He further invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 05.06.2023 wherein he inter alia stated as under -
"..In my Second Appeal filed before the Commission on 19.10.2022 I have submitted the Appeal grounds for my prayer before the Commission at S.No.5 of the Appeal. Regarding the information sought by me vide Sr.No.2 and 3 of my RTI Application to the CPIO, the First Appellate Authority in his Decision and Finding under Serial No. (ii) says that the CPIO has misinterpreted these information by placing reliance on section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 and decides that those does not quality to be material information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. But I have given the grounds in this Second Appeal under Sr.No.5(ii) sought vide Sr.No. 2 and Sr.No.3 are covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 for 4 which I have mistakenly by clerical error that those information does not reliance at Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005...."
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions filed prior to hearing, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"...information sought vide Sr. No. (ii) is vague and not specific, in the sense that there is no clarity as to whether the appellant has sought the information pertaining to the total ITC availed in GSTR-3B under various heads or ITC utilised to discharge the liability. Again, the information at Sr. No. (iii) is also vague in nature since there is no clarity as to which tax components, the details of GST amount has been sought for the given period. Moreover, the information sought by the Applicant vide Sr. No. (ii) and (iii) is not maintained by the GSTN in any form/report in ordinary course of business. As a result, the information sought under Sr. Nos. (ii) and (iii) does not qualify to be Material Information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. It is further submitted that the information sought vide Sr. No. (v) is not available with GSTN in any form/report in the ordinary course of business. It is to be stated that through TRAN-1/TRAN-2 ITC is credited into the credit ledger. The taxpayer also receives the ITC via GSTR-3B, and the amount is credited to the credit ledger. However, ITC is used to discharge the liability of GSTR-3B from the accumulated balance in the ITC ledger. This utilised credit cannot be distinguished from which credit entry it is being utilised because the balance is net of all past credit and debit entries. Accordingly, the requested information cannot be provided.
9. It is also pertinent to note that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 'Material Information' is the information, which already exists, in physical or electronic form. Since the information sought by the applicant is not maintained by GSTN in the manner sought and is not available or existing with the public authority, therefore CPIO has refused to furnish such information and the First Appellant Authority upheld the same.
10. It is apposite to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011; dated 09.08.2011 had observed as under:
"....At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the 5 definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and
(j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the 3 exemptions in section 8 of the Act.
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. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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..."
11. The Hon'ble CIC in Mr. Subrata Guha Ray Vs. CPIO;
CIC/SB/A/2016/001025/CBECE-BJ dated 03/03/2017 has observed as under:
"... At the outset the Commission observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions..."
12. Further, in the matter of Sh. Alok Shukla vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated May 23, 2013), the Hon'ble CIC had held that "While dealing with RTI, we should not forget that information means only an existing material record. The CPIO can provide the copy of the available records; he cannot create new records in order to address specific queries of the Appellant."
13. The Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), had held that: "... if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession, the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given..."
614. Relying upon the hitherto mentioned judgements of various courts and tribunals, it shall be inferred that the order of the FAA passed on 5th September, 2022 is intra vires to the statute of Right to Information Act, 2005. The FAA has rightly refused to disclose information for the reason that the information sought by the Appellant is not 'Material Information' under Section 2 (f) of the statute and the information is vague."
Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO facilitated a detailed discussion on the E- filing GST returns and maintenance of such records.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the parties observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant was unsatisfactory response from the CPIO against points no. 2, 3 & 5. In response to which, the CPIO clarified the factual position vis-à-vis the information sought and accordingly the reply provided to the Appellant on said points in a comprehensive manner (as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs).
Here, the Commission finds no infirmity in the submissions tendered by the CPIO as regards to points to no. 2 & 3 as the information sought by the Appellant is vague and unspecific which does not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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, 7 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) 8 Now, as far as relief for information sought at point no. 5 is concerned the factual reply of the CPIO intimating the non-availability of records in as per the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. Thus, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, in terms of clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पं जीयक
िदनां क /
9