Mahendra Kumar Chejara vs Directorate General Of Goods And ... on 27 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mahendra Kumar Chejara vs Directorate General Of Goods And ... on 27 December, 2021

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                           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/DGSTX/A/2020/116058

Mr. Mahendra Kumar Chejara                             ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO                                                   ... ितवादी/Respondent
Directorate General of Goods &
Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur
Zone Unit, C-62, Sarojani Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 01-10-2019            FA     : 10-11-2019        SA      : 09-06-2020

CPIO : 04-11-2019           FAO : 16-12-2019           Hearing : 21-12-2021

                                ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The appellant seeking information on three points, including inter-alia as under:-

Page 1 of 3

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 04-11-2019 had denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as sought at point no. 1 and given reply at point nos. 02 & 03 that the information sought does not pertain to this office. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 10-11- 2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 16-12-2019 upheld CPIOs reply and rejected the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri H. P. Kacholia, Asst. Director/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio- call.

4. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 01.10.2019.

5. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that upon complying section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, they have furnished a due reply to the appellant stating that with regard to point no. 01 of the RTI application, the third party has raised their objection in sharing the information and hence the same has been denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. With regards to point no. 02 to 03 of the RTI Application, they have informed the appellant the information does not pertain to their office.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to the TEP filed against M/s. RIMS engaged in the alleged corruption related to set top box. The Commission further observes that the appellant is aggrieved with the import of set top box being done without the prescribed standards resulting in huge tax evasion on part of the third party in connivance with the custom officers. However the Commission observes that the appellant is trying to redress his grievance through the RTI Act, 2005. However the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case. Further the information sought by the appellant on point no. 01 of the RTI application is a third party information and has a direct bearing upon the commercial interest of the third party and hence the same cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. With Page 2 of 3 regards to point no. 02 & 03 of the RTI application since the information sought is not related to the public authority the reply furnished by the CPIO is found to be satisfactory. However for the violation of standard of a product the appellant is advised to approach an appropriate public authority such as Bureau of Indian Standards and make a complaint for the redressal of his grievance,

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                           नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                       Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                               सूचना आयु )
                                     Information Commissioner (सू

                                                        दनांक / Date : 21-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)


Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      Directorate General of Goods &
      Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zone Unit,
      C-62, Sarojani Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
      Rajasthan-302001

2.    Mr. Mahendra Kumar Chejara




                                                                        Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission