Central Information Commission
S A Elango Vethantham vs Chief Commissioner Of Service Tax, New ... on 30 December, 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.:- CIC/CCSTD/A/2018/134862-BJ
Mr. S. A. Elango Vethantham
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & AVP - Legal
Good and Services Tax Network
4th Floor, Woodmark 1, East Wing
Asset 11, Hospitality District Aerocity
New Delhi - 110037
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.12.2019
Date of Decision : 30.12.2019
Date of RTI application 26.03.2018
CPIO's response 26.04.2018
Date of the First Appeal 02.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 10.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.06.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on whether "New Chennai Hot Puffs" (one sales & manufacturing of Bakery products like puffs, cakes, bread etc.) was registered under GST Regime either under Central & State category and if so, the copy of certificate of registration and GSTIN Number TKS, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.04.2018, denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 10.05.2018 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 4
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Mohammad Shadaab, CPIO & AVP (Legal);
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Vinoth, Network Engineer NIC studio at Bangalore confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 24.12.2019 wherein it was submitted that he had recently shifted out of Bangalore due to his poor health to stay with his daughter in Chennai and therefore, he could not get the redirected letter on time. Furthermore, it was submitted that he had recently undergone cataract surgery on his right eye i.e. on 16.12.2019 and as he was advised not to use laptop or mobile phone, he could not send a reply earlier. Due to above stated reason, he would not be able to attend the hearing through VC at Bangalore and therefore requested the Commission to proceed further in his absence and decide the Appeal on merits. He further requested to consider his arguments put forth in Second Appeal. He also requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide a simple yes/no answer to his RTI request-whether the said unit is registered under GST Regime or not and if found to be registered under the GST Regime, the GSTN may be provided to him with a copy of the Registration Certificate. In its reply, the Respondent while reiterating the submissions of the CPIO / FAA stated that Section 8 (1) (j) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 get attracted in this case as the Appellant was seeking personal information and no larger public interest was demonstrated. Furthermore, Section 158 of CGST Act, 2017 bars disclosure of particulars contained in any statement / return furnished as it is held in fiduciary capacity between GSTN and the people. Besides this, as per Rule 18 of CGST, it is required to be displayed at a prominent location at Principal Place of business and every additional place of business. Therefore, it was contended that the denial of information by the CPIO / FAA was in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as also CGST Act, 2017.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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 Page 2 of 4 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO vs. Hemant Kumar Behera W.P.(C) 11658/2017 & CM No. 47383/2017 dated 27.08.2018 held as under:
"17. Mere apprehension that a third party has declared income, which is lower than the true income, cannot justify disclosure of Income Tax Returns in larger public interest."
The Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 had held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted Page 3 of 4 invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
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.
The Appeal stands 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: 30.12.2019 Page 4 of 4