Central Information Commission
Dilip Kumar Birani vs Chief Commissioner, Cgst & Central ... on 9 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 and CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/637671
Dilip Kumar Birani .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Asst.
Commissioner, CGST& CE,
Division-E, 11, Azad Nagar,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 311001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2026
Date of Decision : 06.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
as well as the Respondent are common, subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
File No. CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 25.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 26.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.07.2024
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 1 of 11
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.05.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:
"I am requesting information from your office on 6 points about GSTIN
08ABMPP7530P1ZU of Shri RAZESH PIPADA Proprietor of M/s Kalpana
Enterprises.
(i) Please provide the effective date of re-activation of GST Number
08ABMPP7530P1ZU.
(ii) Whether this is re-activation or an altogether fresh registration
obtained by Shri Rajesh Pipada from the GSTIN.
(iii) If this is a new registration then please provide the list of
Documents submitted by Shri Rajesh Pipada along with GST Form
01 - I am not asking for Copy of Documents, just list of documents.
(iv) If this is a re-activation, then please provide a certified copy of
documents on the basis of which this GSTIN 08ABMPP7530P1ZU
has been re-activated by the GST Department.
(v) Please provide the Name, Official designation with office address
of the GST Officials from April 2023 to May 2024 who supervised,
processed, and approved the re-activation or granted fresh
registration to Shri Rajesh Pipada the GSTIN 08ABMPP7530P1ZU...
(vi) VI. Please provide a Copy of Form GST REG-14 [See rule 19(1)]
Application for Amendment in Registration Particulars (For all
types of registered persons) for GSTIN Number
08ABMPP7530P1ZU...
(vii) Lastly, please provide the address of the additional place of
business for GSTIN Number 08ABMPP7530P1ZU..."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.06.2024 stating as
under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI Application bearing registration No.
GSTJP/R/E/24/00072 dated 20.05.2024.
In this context, "it is to inform that registration bearing GST No.
08ABMPP7530P1ZU of M/s Rajesh Pipada has been revoked in
compliance of Order-in-Appeal No. 194(GKT) CGST/JDR/2024 dated
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 2 of 11
26.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST
Appeal Commissionerate, Jodhpur against Order No. ZA080523024562R
dated 08.05.2023 of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-E,
Bhilwara."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 24.07.2024, held as under:
4.1. I find that the appellant has preferred appeal on the ground, that:
"Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information."
I observed that comments were sought in the matter from Assistant
Commissioner/Central Public Information Officer, Central Goods and Service
Tax Division- 'E', Bhilwara and the reply was received vide their letter C. No.
RTI/01/BHL-E/2021/PT. II/604 dated 10-07-2024. The reply is reproduced as
under:
i. "Due to technical glitch, the RTI application was delayed.
ii. The information sought under fourth and sixth point of the RTI filed
by Sh. Dilip Kumar Birani could not be provided under Section 8(1)(d)
of RTI Act, 2005 as it relates to third party, disclosure of which has no
relationship with public activity or interest. Further, in context of the
information sough under point five of the RTI it is submitted that
registration bearing GST No. 08ABMPP7530PIZU of M/s Rajesh
Pipada was revoked by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-E,
Bhilwara in compliance of OIA No. 194(GKT)CGST/JDR/2024 dated
26.02.2024(copy enclosed) passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Appeals), CGST Appeal Commissionerate, Jodhpur."
5. While going through the above comments offered by the Assistant
Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Division "E", Bhilwara, I
observed that correct and proper information was provided to the
applicant.
In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention here that the CPIO has
denied the information under section 8(1)(d) which exempt the information
from disclosure including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 3 of 11
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. In this
regard, reference may be made to following case laws:
i. Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs O/o Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
(CIC/SB/A/2016/000034):
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence the appellant filed RTI
application before the CPIO, Central Excise, Tuticorin, seeking
information on three points pertaining to M/S V.V. Minerals, including (i)
details of Private Bonded Warehouse-wise, minerals-wise stock of
Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon etc. available as on 08.082013 and
17.092013; and (ii) copies of monthly returns of mineral-wise inward
receipt and outward movement of minerals from August, 2013 to April,
2015 - the Commission held that the information sought relates to third
party information, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party and no larger public interest would be served by
the disclosure of the information sought. Hence, the information sought
is exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and cannot be provided
to the appellant.
ii. B. N. Singh Vs. CPIO & Assistant Director, ESIC
(CIC/BS/A/2014/001310/7739):-
The appellant sought various information regarding a particular
contractor. The PIO denied the information as it is personal in nature,
relates to third party and if disclosed would cause unwanted invasion of
his privacy and will also harm his competitive position and no public
purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to the disclosure. The
Commission held that the Information relating to the affairs of a private
entity the disclosure of which can possibly have an adverse effect on the
competitive position of the entity, is exempt under section 8(1)(d) of the
RTI Act.
iii. Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana)
(CIC/SM/A/2010/001513):
The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the
Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by
claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 4 of 11
Information (RTI) Act. CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the
account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial
confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone.
Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it
jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be
construed as an authorization for seeking such details.
6. Attention is also drawn to the following case laws where the CIC has
denied/rejected the RTI applications seeking information already available
in public domain and decided in favour of public authorities:
a) In the CIC Decision No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000379/SB dated 19-09-2016 the
Commission held that:
Once certain information in placed in public domain accessible to the
citizens either freely or on payment of a predetermined price, that
information cannot be said to be "held" or "under the control" of the public
authority and thus would cease to be an "information" accessible under the
RTI Act.
The RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much
information to the public including through internet so that the public have
minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Further,
once information has been provided in public domain and on website then
the information is no longer accessible as "right to information".
b) Furthermore, the Commission in the decision No.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002732/MP & CIC/YA/A/2016/000983/MP dated 02-03-
2017 held that the respondent is not obliged to give information under the
RTI Act, where the same is already available in the public domain.
7. Further, in this regard, it is submitted that in the instant matter Shri Dilip
Kumar Birani has sought information in respect of GST Number-
08ABMPP7530P1ZU in the name of Kalpana Enterprises, 20, UIT Market,
Bhilwara Rajasthan which is related with Shri Rajesh Pipada. Also, the
appellant failed to establish that a larger public interest would be served by
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 5 of 11
disclosing the information. From this, it appears that the appellant has
personal interest rather than public interest in seeking information.
8. Accordingly, in terms of discussion and finding made in foregoing paras, I
rely upon the case laws referred in point 5 to find that the disclosure of
information in the present case may harm the competitive position of the
third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public
interest warrants such disclosure. The RTI Appeal is related with Personal
Information of Shri Rajesh Pipada, and disclosure of the same does not
involve any public interest. I also rely upon the CIC Decision 19-09-2016, No.
CIC/YA/A/2014/000379/SB dated CIC/YA/A/2015/002732/MP &
CIC/YA/A/2016/000983/MP dated 02-03-2017, wherein the Commission
held that once information has been provided in public domain and on
website then the information is no longer accessible as "right to
information".
In the instant case, it is clear that information related with GST Registration
is personal information of the Registrants and cannot be supplied without
having any larger public interest. Further, information related to GST Acts,
Rules, Notification, domain public https://www.chic.gov.in/entities/gst
which is no longer accessible as "right to Circular etc. information". is
already available on Le. on
ORDER
Accordingly, in consideration of the above, I reject the appeal dated 26-06- 2024 filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Birani, ******, RC Vyas Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/637671 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 6 of 11RTI application filed on : 06.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 26.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 28.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.08.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.08.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Please see attached PDF File.
That contents Two Set of Information request from your office with Background, Supporting Documents & Bona-fide.
PDF total Seven Pages. RTI Request is in first Page only.
Following information from your office is in reference of Part -B of FORM GST REG-01 of GSTIN --08ABMPP7530P1ZU - Rajesh Pipada, Proprietor, Kalpana Enterprises With respect to above, please provide the followings:
SET One:
Serial number 7. Date of commencement of business - please share that date...
Serial number 16. (c) Nature of premises - please share the option selected by Shri Rajesh Pipada...
Serial number 25. Customized list of documents to be uploaded by the applicant - please share list of documents uploaded/ submitted by Shri Rajesh Pipada with GST Department...
I am not requesting for the copies of above-mentioned documents. Only Name or heading or Nature of the document is enough.
SET Two:
Please provide date of receipt from the Registered Taxpayer or date of issue by the GST Department to the registered taxpayer for below mentioned Forms, FORM GST REG-14 Application for Amendment in Registration Particulars FORM GST REG-22 Order for revocation of cancellation of registration FORM GST REG-30 Form for Field Visit Report CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 7 of 11 FORM GST APL-01 -Appeal to Appellate Authority FORM GST APL-03 Application to the Appellate Authority Background, Supporting Documents & Bona-fide: My father late Shri Ashok Kumar Birani had rented out Shop Number 20 UIT Market Bhilwara in the year 1989 for 11 months to late Smt Jatan Devi Pipada (mother of Shri Rajesh Pipada).
Post those 11 months, my father had never issued any Rental Agreement to anybody related to the Shop number 20 UIT Bhilwara. He never renewed the original Rental Agreement Issued in favour of late Smt Jatan Devi Pipada or in favour of any other family member.
Sadly, my father had expired in January 2023... and Smt Jatan Devi Pipada in September 2017 Shri Rajesh Pipada's suo moto GST Cancellation was done by the Department in the 3rd Week of February 2023 post my complaint (Grievance Detalls: CВOЕС/E/2023/0000778 dated 04/02/2023 and appeal) filed at PG Portal.
Please see attached screenshots for more detalls. PG Portal Screenshot Shot----- Page Number FIVE GST Cancel Screen shot from Common portalPage Number SIX Scan Copy of Original Rental Agreement for Shop Number 20, UIT Market Page Number SEVEN Death Certificate of Smt Jatan Devi Pipada confirms that Shri Rajesh Pipada got registered himself with GST Department post her death Page Number THREE Death Certificate of Shri Ashok Kumar Birani is attached to confirm that Shri Rajesh Pipada's GST number got cancelled upon his death Page Number FOUR This all confirms that I am related party.
Principal place of business of Shri Rajesh Pipada (Registered GSTIN Tax Payer 08ABMPP7530P1ZU) at shop number 20 UIT Market Bhilwara is still owned by my father. I am one of his legal heirs.
In above mentioned context, I need all those sought Information to safeguard my & other legal heirs' legal rights for the Immovable property CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 8 of 11 which has been registered as principal place of business for Shri Rajesh Pipada at The GST Department."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.07.2024 stating as under:
"Please refer to your RTI application bearing Registration No. GSTJP/R/E/24/00104 dated 06.07.2024.
In this context, it is informed that the information sought could not be provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it relates to third party, disclosure of which has no relationship with public activity or interest."
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 16.08.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Balram Meena, CPIO/Assistant Commissioner, appeared through video conference.
9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
10. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to GST registration of a third-party taxpayer and therefore the reply was provided in brief indicating revocation of registration in terms of the appellate order. It was contended that disclosure of further details may attract exemption relating to third-party information.
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 9 of 11Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant sought information on six specific points; however, the CPIO furnished only a general and consolidated response stating that the GST registration had been revoked pursuant to an appellate order. The Appellant in his Second Appeal stated that he is legal heir of owner, late Shri Ashok Kumar Birani, of Shop Number 20, UIT Market, Bhilwara, and on that address GST Registration is granted to Shri Rajesh Pipada, Kalpana Enterprises.
12. The Commission notes that a blanket and generic denial/response without addressing each query point-wise is not in consonance with the scheme of the RTI Act. The queries raised by the Appellant largely relate to statutory actions taken by the Department regarding a GST registration. Moreover, the Appellant has clearly established that he is a related party and not a third party. Information sought by Appellant is agnostic and such as dates, nature of premises, list of documents uploaded (he has not sought copies), date of receipt and issue of five different forms. Such information, being part of official records concerning regulatory action, cannot be treated as personal information per se, unless it squarely attracts any exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act with proper justification.
13. In the present case, the CPIO has neither invoked any specific exemption clause nor provided a reasoned point-wise reply. A mere reference to revocation of registration does not satisfy the requirement of furnishing a clear and categorical response to each item of information sought. The Commission is of the view that disclosure of factual and procedural details relating to departmental action on a GST registration does not, by itself, amount to disclosure of personal information when such data pertains to regulatory compliance and official orders already passed by the competent authority.
14. In view of the above, the Respondent CPIO is directed to revisit the RTI above applications and provide a revised, clear and point-wise reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any part of the information is considered exempt, the specific exemption clause of the RTI Act along with cogent justification shall be clearly indicated.
CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 10 of 1115. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Addl. Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, 142-B, Hiran Magri, Sector - 11, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 CIC/CCEJP/A/2024/631899 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)