Central Information Commission
Mr. Narain Singh vs Trade And Taxes Department, Govt. Of Nct ... on 5 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001970/5011
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001970
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Narain Singh
KU-26, Pitampura,
Delhi-110088.
Respondent : Mr. K. Mahesh
PIO & Joint Commissioner Govt. of NCT of Delhi Trade and Taxes Department Vyapar Bhawan, I. P. Estate, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 23/03/2009 PIO replied : 27/04/2009 First appeal filed on : 13/05/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 17/06/2009 Second Appeal filed on : 17/08/2009 Sr. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Copies of original assessment orders for 86-87, 87-88, In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section 88-89, 89-90 and 94-95 both local and central. 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required information cannot be furnished to the Appellant.
2. Copies of re-assessment orders for 86-87, 87-88, 88-89, In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section 89-90 and 94-95 both local and central. 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required information cannot be furnished to the Appellant.
3. In case dealer has gone in appeal against re-assessment In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section for any of the years noted above and 90-91 to 94-95. 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required Copy of orders passed by Appellate Authority in 86-87 information cannot be furnished to the to 94-95, local and Central. Appellant.
4. If case has been remanded by Appellate Authority, than In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section copy of remand order passed by AA/HA in the year 86- 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required 87, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 93-94 and 94-95, information cannot be furnished to the Local and Central i.e. 86-87 to 94-95. Appellant.
5. In case dealer has again gone in appeal against order of In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section AA/HA in remand case in any of the year from 86-87 to 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required 94-95, copy of order of Appellate Authority passed on information cannot be furnished to the appeal of remanded assessment, year wise in Local and Appellant. Central.
6. If the deptt. has gone in appeal against the order of In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section Appellate Authority in any year from 86-87 to 94-5, 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required copy of the order passed by Tribunal Sales tax or Delhi information cannot be furnished to the High Court in years from 86-87 to 94-95, Local and Appellant. Central.
7. As a result of re-assessment or order of Appellate In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section Authority in any year from 86-87 t o94-95 dealer 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required became entitled to refund in any year, copy of refund information cannot be furnished to the application filed by dealer for years from 86-87 to 94- Appellant. 95 local and central.
8. Copy of refund orders as issued by AA/HA after In view of Section 8 (1) (d) read with section accepting the applications of the dealer for the years 86- 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required 87 to 94-95 local and central. information cannot be furnished to the Appellant.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Denial of information by the PIO.
The First Appellate Authority order:
"I have perused the reply of PIO and the material on record, I am of the view that Sh. Narain Singh, ex- STO was charge sheeted and the deptt. has already supplied him the similar type of documents for other years in respect of the dealer whose registration certificate has been cancelled by the deptt. long back. Since he is in possession of many documents in respect of the said dealer, therefore, PIO may consider giving the copies of other assessment orders and similar documents asked under RTI Act within 15 days to the Appellant."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
• Some of the information as against query no. 3 & 4 is incomplete. • Some of the information as given against query no. 5, 6 & 8 is not available now whereas initially he had declined to provide the information on grounds of sec. 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act and Sec. 98 (1) of DVAT Act. This means that PIO has information with him, but he is not provided in spite of order of FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Narain Singh Respondent: Mr. K. Mahesh, PIO & Joint Commissioner The PIO agreed to give the information after the order of the FAA but demanded additional fees which is contrary to the Law. The PIO is warned to ensure that he deals with RTI application as per the provisions of the Law.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the entire information to the Appellant before 20 October 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 05 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK)