Central Information Commission
Pk Malhan vs Chief Commissioner Of Service Tax, New ... on 24 October, 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.(s):- CIC/CCITC/A/2018/115707-BJ+
CIC/CCITC/A/2018/115990-BJ+
CIC/CCCEC/A/2018/119560-BJ+
CIC/CCSTD/A/2018/120624-BJ
Mr. P. K. Malhan
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Asst. Commissioner (CPIO)
Office of the Assistant Commissioner
CGST Division - II, Camp At
The Mall, Customs House, 2nd Floor
Amritsar - 143001
2. CPIO
Asst. Commissioner, Office of the Chief Commissioner of GST Zone
Central Revenue Building, Plot No. 19
Sector - 17 - C, Chandigarh - 160017
3. CPIO & Assistant Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate
GST Bhawan, F - Block, Rishi Nagar
Ludhiana - 141001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2019
Date of Decision : 24.10.2019
ORDER
RTI I File No. CIC/CCITC/A/2018/115707 Date of RTI application 01.10.2017 CPIO's response 30.10.2017 Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 12.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.03.2018 Page 1 of 5 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points pertaining to the Central Excise/ CGST Zone, Chandigarh regarding the details of the revenue collected- Central Excise/ Service Tax, details of CENVAT utilized, etc in the format mentioned in the RTI application and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, Central GST Division- II, Amritsar vide its letter dated 30.10.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.12.2017 allowed inspection of records to the Appellant.
RTI - II File No. CIC/CCITC/A/2018/115990-BJ Date of RTI application 01.10.2017 CPIO's response 10.11.2017 Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 12.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.03.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points pertaining to the Central Excise/ CGST Zone, Chandigarh regarding the details of the revenue collected- Central Excise/ Service Tax, details of CENVAT utilized, etc in the format mentioned in the RTI application and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, CGST Division-I, Amritsar vide its letter dated 10.11.2017 stated that the information sought was not maintained in the format sought by the Appellant and was available in a scattered form in different files and registers which were voluminous in nature. Accordingly, the Appellant was requested to inspect the files/ records on any working day as per Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.12.2017 also allowed inspection of records to the Appellant.
RTI - III File No. CIC/CCCEC/A/2018/119560-BJ Date of RTI application 01.10.2017 CPIO's response 09.11.2017 Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 22.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.03.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points pertaining to the Central Excise/ CGST Zone, Chandigarh regarding the details of the revenue collected- Central Excise/ Service Tax, details of CENVAT utilized, etc in the format mentioned in the RTI application and issues related thereto.Page 2 of 5
The CPIO, CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 09.11.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 22.12.2017 provided additional clarifications to the Appellant.
RTI - IV File No. CIC/CCSTD/A/2018/120624-BJ
Date of RTI application 01.10.2017
CPIO's response 09.11.2017/
10.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 18.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.04.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points pertaining to the Central Excise/ CGST Zone, Chandigarh regarding the details of the revenue collected- Central Excise/ Service Tax, details of CENVAT utilized, etc in the format mentioned in the RTI application and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, O/o the Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Jalandhar vide its letter dated 10.11.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Thereafter the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 09.11.2017 provided another point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, O/o the Chief Commissioner, CGST Zone, Chandigarh, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.12.2017 dismissed the Appeal for being time barred.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Balvinder Singh, DC & CPIO, Amritsar, Mr. Virendar Singh, AC, Mr. Rajneesh Dewan, AC and Mr. Aftab Alam, Assistant Commissioner cum CPIO Chandigarh and Mr. Vishwa Jeet Saharan, Asst. Comm.-Cum-CPIO, Ludhiana through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The notice of hearing of the Second Appeal sent to the Appellant by post returned undelivered with the remark "Addressee Expired". In its reply, the Respondent confirmed the demise of the Appellant and that the information held by them had been furnished to the Appellant by the CPIOs/FAAs. In its written response also certain other clarifications were provided. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Asst. Commissioner and CPIO, O/o the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh Zone) dated 15.10.2019 in all the 04 matters under consideration herein, wherein it was stated that the RTI application dated 01.10.2017 had been transferred by them vide letter dated 09.10.2017 to all the CPIOs of respective Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates falling under the jurisdiction of Customs and Central Excise Chandigarh Zone. The application was transferred to other CPIOs under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the grounds that the information sought was closely connected with the working of their Page 3 of 5 offices. The application was further transferred by the CPIOs to the CPIOs in the field formations. The subject appeal had been filed against the letters/ replies given by the CPIO/ CGST Commissionerate, Jalandhar; CPIO, CGST Division I/II, Amritsar; CPIO CGST Ludhiana and their respective Appellate Authorities. The Appellant was not aggrieved by the transfer of application by them as no Appeal had been filed against the transfer letter dated 09.10.2017. Furthermore, the copies of the Appeals received by their office had been forwarded to the concerned authorities to file their submissions.
The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent (Dy. Commissioner, CGST, Division-I, Amritsar) dated 14.10.2019 (In Appeal No. CIC/CCITC/A/2018/115990-BJ wherein while providing the details of the CPIO attending the hearing, it was stated that Shri P.K. Malhan had expired on 07.02.2019. A copy of the Death Certificate dated 12.02.2019 issued by the State of Washington; D/o Health (USA) was also enclosed by the Respondent alongwith the written submission.
The Commission was further in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent (Asst. Commissioner and CPIO, O/o the Pr. Commissioner, GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana) dated 17.10.2019 (In Appeal No. CIC/CCCEC/A/2018/119560-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA, it was stated that the information sought by the Appellant related to multiple issues that were dealt with in many files for a lengthy period of four years from the year 2013-14 to 2017-18. A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in CIC/KY/A/2015/000552/SB dated 02.09.2016, CIC/OK/A/2006/00268-272 dated 29.12.2006 and decision no. CIC/OK/A/2006/00605 dated 30.04.2007 and the OM No. 12/9/2009-IR dated 24.05.2010 issued by the M/o Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, D/o Personnel and Training, New Delhi dated 24.05.2010 in support of their contention. Furthermore, it was stated that the Department was not aware of decisions of other CPIOs and the Commissionerate comprised of 21 Divisions hence the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005 were squarely applicable to the present case. Moreover, the allegations against the CPIO/ FAA were denied by the Respondent as being absolutely baseless. It was also submitted that the intention of the applicant, a former employee of the department appeared to be malafide and the purpose of RTI Act which was to introduce element of transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority appeared to be defeated through frivolous applications which consume vast resources without any public interest. Moreover, it was stated that the Appellant had passed away on 07.02.2019 in the United States of America.
The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent (Asst. Commissioner and CPIO, O/o the CGST Commissionerate, Jalandhar) dated 18.10.2019 (In Appeal No. File No. CIC/CCSTD/A/2018/120624-BJ) wherein it was stated that the RTI application was addressed to the CGST Zone, Chandigarh which was transferred to all the Commissionerates of their Zone u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 The application was thereafter replied by the GST Commissionerate vide letter dated 10.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant approached the FAA, O/o the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Zone, Chandigarh wherein the Appellant did not mention any grounds of appeal against the information supplied by the Commissionerate/ Division CPIOs on transfer of RTI application. The FAA dismissed the Appeal being time barred. Thus, it was submitted that the information pertaining to CGST Commissionerate, Jalandhar had been provided to the Appellant in the requisite proforma vide letter dated 10.11.2017. Moreover, it was stated that the Appellant had passed away on 07.02.2019 in the United States of America.
Page 4 of 5It was noted by the Commission that the Appellant had since expired on 07.02.2019 and that none of his legal heir received a copy of the correspondence from the Respondent Public Authority.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. It was however advised that a copy of the submissions made to the Commission be endorsed at the Appellant's address for perusal by his legal heir, if so required.
The Appeals stand 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: 24.10.2019
Page 5 of 5