Central Information Commission
K. Muthu vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 15 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCECN/A/2021/104535
K Muthu ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Joint Commissioner of Central
GST and Excise, RTI Cell, Central Revenue
Building, Tractor Road, NGO A Colony,
Tirunelveli - 627007, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/06/2022
Date of Decision : 14/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 27/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 12/03/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 12/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/01/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2020 seeking the following information about the CGST, SGST, IGST, ITC and the tax deduction received due to taxation by the three Firms of RMKV two Firms situated at Tirunelveli and one situated at Tirunelveli Vannarapattai. In this regard, provide the information:-
1. "How many companies in the RMVK- Groups have filed GST accounts in this office, Unique code No (For example RMKV Fabrica Pvt Ltd, RMKV Garments Pvt Ltd, RMKV Silk Pvt Ltd, RMKV Textiles Pvt Ltd. Royal India, Visvams Pvt Ltd, Other companies) 1
2. Provide date wise list of the names of the companies, its Code No - their numbers, the names of the owners, the details of the company's IPs- if changed, then its detail, the date of incorporation (certificate of incorporation dated)
3. Provide information that these companies filed GST in this office once a month or every three months?
4. Provide the certified copies of all the documents in file containing the details of the SGST goods and service tax filed by these companies in this office.
5. Provide the certified copies of all the documents in file containing the details of the CGST tax filed by these companies in this office.
6. Provide the certified copies of all the documents in file containing the details of the IGST tax filed by these companies in this office.
7. Provide the certified copies in the files containing the details of taxes including ITC, actions of Value added tax filed by these companies in this office. 8. Provide the certified copies of voucher bill and all documents related to the procurement submitted by the aforesaid companies in this office for claim of tax paid by the manufacturers.
9. Provide the date wise details of certified copies of the tax paid to Central/State Govt. after deducting the taxes previously paid by these companies.
10. Provide the details of certified copies of documents relating to Customs duties, Excise duties (Direct and Indirect Taxes) taxes paid from 2010 onwards before the GST came into force by these companies.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 27.02.2020 stating as follows:-
SI.No.1 :
"It is informed that M/s. RMKV Silk Pvt Ltd, Tirunelveli (GSTIN : 33AAFCR4024B1Z1) is under the control of Central Authorities, remaining other Firms of RMKV are under the control of State Authorities. SI.No.2 to 3 :
The information sought by the applicant relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information officer or State Public Information officer or the appellate authority as the case may be satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information". In this case the information sought by the applicant is exempted on the ground that disclosure of information would invade the privacy of a third party under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. SI.No.4 to 10 :2
The applicant called for the copies of documents/records of CGST/SGST/IGST payments and returns pertaining to M/s. RMKV Silks Pvt. Ltd, Tirunelveli. As per Section 8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act, 2005, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Therefore, the information sought by the applicant cannot be provided as it is commercial information and disclosure of same exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2020. FAA's order dated 12.05.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Not present.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information as he has merely sought for the GST file of the averred firm.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act bears no infirmity as the Appellant has sought for cumbersome records related to the tax returns filed by a third party. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:3
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, no relief is pertinent in the matter. However, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The CPIO is directed to send his written explanation to this effect to the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4