Central Information Commission
Y. Akbar Ahmed vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 17 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCECN/C/2020/127251
Y. Akbar Ahmed ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Principal Chief
Commissioner of GST & Central
Excise, Tamilnadu & Puducherry,
RTI Cell, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034, Tamil Nadu.
CPIO
O/o the Commissioner of GST & Central
Excise, Chennai-Outer Commissionerate,
RTI Cell, Newry Towers:No 2504-I:II Avenue,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600040, Tamil Nadu. .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/02/2022
Date of Decision : 16/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18/07/2020
CPIO replied on : 17/08/2020
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/09/2020
Information sought:
1The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2020 seeking the following information:
1. Please provide me with the;
a) Copies of Action Taken Report,
b) Information on the Deliberate Delay Committed in Taking action,
c) Information on More time Required to take action,
d) Copies of Letters/Notices Served to the Tamilnadu Waqf Board officials,
e) Copies of the Final Orders Passed,
f) Information on Procedure/Law/Manual/Rules followed in Conducting Investigation/taking action, In Respect of Letter Dated : 15.10.2019, received by the Principal Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Chennai North/Chennai South/Chennai Outer, from the O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tamilnadu & Puducherry?
Respondent No.1 furnished a reply to the Complainant on 17.08.2020 stating as under:-
Point a) - Consequent to the issue of this office letter of even number dated 15.10.2019 calling for the action taken report on the subject of Rental/ Lease Revenue generated by State Wald' Boards, this office vide letter of even number dated 27.07.2020 has called for the Action Taken Report from the Commissionerates.
Point (b) to (e): The information called for under Si No. (b) to (e) are not available in this office. Hence, in this regard, it is informed that the information requested may be available with the CPIOs of Chennai North, Chennai South, Chennai Outer, Coimbatore, Salem, Puducherry, Madurai, Trichy, Chennai Audit-II, Coimbatore Audit Commissionerates coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai. Hence, your application is being forwarded to the CPIOs of all the above mentioned Commissionerates coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai, under Section 6(3) o the Right to Information Act, 2005, for furnishing the information directly to you.
Point f):- The information on the procedure/Law/Manual/Rule followed in conducting Investigation/taking action is available in CBIC website @ www.cbic.gov.in.
Respondent No.2 denied information to the complainant on 08.09.2020 under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent No.1: Rajani Menon, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through audio conference.
Respondent No.2: R Sundar, (I.R.S) Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Complainant stated that Respondent No.2 has provided a misleading reply and has wrongly denied the information sought for in the RTI Application.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant matter is squarely covered by the decision in File No. CIC/DGSTX/C/2020/120755 decided on 11.01.2022, wherein the Complainant was heard at length and the same issues under reference in the instant Complaint was discussed and adjudicated upon.
The Complainant agreed to the said observation but argued that Respondent No.2 is still misleading the Commission as he believes there was an investigation conducted on the basis of his averred Complaint but the CPIO is misrepresenting that there was only verification of the Complaint.
Respondent No.2 submitted on the same lines as that of the Commission's observation that the instant matter stands decided already.
Decision In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, the Commission is of the considered view that no separate line of adjudication is warranted in the instant matter. The proceedings of the hearing and the decision in the earlier case is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
"The Complainant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application stating that there are about thousands of Waqf properties under the supervisory control of the Tamilnadu Waqf Board generating a revenue to the tune of crores of rupees yet seeking tax exemption. He further alleged that even as tax exemption is warranted only for certain categories of Waqf properties but income generated by private waqfs, family wafq and such likes are also claiming tax exemption. He furthermore argued that there is an Apex Court judgment to which the Income Tax authorities are privy to wherein the Court had ruled in a similar case that exemptions 3 ought to be interpreted in favour of the revenue authorities and that such properties seeking exemptions ought to be inquired against and be mandatorily registered with the Income Tax Office. He further stated that with respect to his averred complaint and the RTI Application, he has received responses from various Commissionerate(s) but all of them are claiming that the Waqf properties are not registered and that information may be treated as NIL. He therefore urged the Commission to inquire into the matter in the larger public interest of the tax payers and direct the Tax authorities to seek registration of the Waqf properties as well as to direct the concerned officers to revisit the RTI Application as well as his complaint of 16.12.2018.
The Rep. of the CPIO submitted that the reply under contention in the instant matter pertains to the Outer Chennai Commissionerate only and although regrettably the Complainant was inadvertently informed that the information cannot be provided as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, prior to the hearing, it has been clarified to him that no Waqf Board registration has taken place under the Outer Chennai Commissionerate and therefore there are no comments to offer from their end.
The Complainant brought the attention of the bench to a letter of Director General of Goods & Service Tax, Intelligence Chennai Zonal Unit dated 04.03.2019 wherein he was informed that his complaint of 16.12.2018 is under investigation yet when he filed the instant RTI Application with the same office with reference to the letter of 04.03.2019, no material information has been forthcoming except the multiple transfer of his complaint as well as the RTI Application.
Decision:
The Commission based on a close scrutiny of the facts on record as well as from the averments of the Complainant during the hearing observes that the primary ground of relief sought for by him through the instant case is a proper investigation into the tax exemption offered to Tamil Nadu Waqf Board properties and also seeking registration of such properties, both of which are issues which are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. The aspect of access to information is not under challenge as much as the aspect of revisiting the averred complaint and the merits of the action taken thus far by the Income Tax authorities is being put forth.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the Commission observes that the office of DGGI, Chennai Zonal Unit partially acted as per the provisions of the RTI Act by transferring the RTI Application to the Pr. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai on 20.05.2020 citing the forwarding of the case of investigation into indirect tax compliance by Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 30.09.2019. Thereupon, the RTI Application was transferred to various GST & Central Excise Chennai Circle Offices/Commissionerate, reply of one of whom i.e Outer Chennai Commissionerate was particularly under challenge in the instant complaint, to this extent, the action of the CPIO of Outer Chennai Commissionerate is adversely viewed by the Commission as the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was mindlessly invoked as it is evinced from the submissions of the Rep. of the CPIO during the hearing.
The Commission severely admonishes G. Gobalakrishnan, Asstt. Commissioner (Technical) & then CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai-Outer Commissionerate for his gross non-application of 4 mind while replying to the RTI Application vide his letter dated 14.07.2020. The CPIO is hereby warned to ensure against arbitrary invocation of exemption clauses of the RTI Act in the future and to acquaint himself well with the provisions of the RTI Act.
As for the relief sought for by the Complainant in terms of an administrative/investigative action by the concerned GST & Central Excise authorities of the Chennai Region for registering the Waqf Board properties and related matters, the same is beyond the purview of the Commission under the RTI Act.
However, the Commission notes that neither the DGGI, Chennai nor the Pr. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai have informed the Complainant about the actual fate of his complaint of 16.12.2018 except for informing him about the same being under investigation on 04.03.2019 as well as transferring or forwarding correspondences to-and-fro their subsidiaries. Considering the serious nature of allegations of the Complainant benefiting the interests of the public at large, the Commission in exercise of the powers conferred to it under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act directs the CPIO, DGGI, Chennai Zonal Unit to expeditiously look into the matter and submit a detailed report explaining as to why no material information has been provided to the Complainant till date regarding the outcome of the action taken on the averred complaint of 16.12.2018. The said report shall be sent to the Commission within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the Complainant."
The above directions are hereby reiterated in the instant case to the CPIO, DGGI, Chennai Zonal Unit i.e Respondent No.2, wherein a report specific to the instant RTI Application shall be sent to the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the Complainant.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5 Copy to:
Assistant Director & CPIO, Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit No.16, GREAMS ROAD BSNL Building, Tower-II, 5TH & 8TH Floors, Chennai- 600006
--(For timely compliance of above directions) 6