Central Information Commission
Rajat Mittal vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 22 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678,
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679,
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681,
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691
Rajat Mittal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block,
Delhi 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026
Date of Decision : 22.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
and the Respondent are common, subject-matter is similar in nature and
hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 03.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.02.2024
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679,
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691
Page 1 of 12
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Whether the amendments carried by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2023 more specially vide sections 2, 3 and 5 of the said Act shall be implemented prospectively or retrospectively or retroactively (being allegedly clarificatory in nature)?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.10.2023 stating as under:
"The provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Rules/Notifications/Orders prescribed thereunder are freely available on public domain and the same may kindly be accessed through the website as detailed below:
www.gst.gov.in www.gstcouncil.gov.in www.chic.gov.in www.gstn.gov.in https://taxinformation.chic.gov.in/ In this regard, I also rely on the decision of Sh. K. Lall. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO F. No. CIC-AT-A-2007-00112 wherein the CIC had held that - unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely 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.
Further as decided by the CIC in F.No.CIC-AT-A-2007-00940 on 15th October, 2007 in the case of L.K. Verma -information-seeker cannot demand from a public authority its opinion and seek its advice in a matter of their interest. Anything which is intangible such as interpretations opinions advice explanations reasons cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2f of the RTI Act.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 2 of 12 Further, I rely on the decision made by the Central Information Commission in Decision No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/186064 dated 28.12.2017 in the case of Avinash Agarwal vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, which reiterates as under:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information: or to furnish replies to situational queries: or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO can only provide information available with him or held by him. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 03.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.10.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 03.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.02.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Whether the amendments carried by the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2023 more specially vide sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3, 4 and 5 of the said Act shall be implemented prospectively or retrospectively or retroactively?"
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 3 of 12
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.10.2023 stating as under:
"The provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Rules/Notifications/Orders prescribed thereunder are freely available on public domain and the same may kindly be accessed through the website as detailed below:
www.gst.gov.in www.gstcouncil.gov.in www.chic.gov.in www.gstn.gov.in https://taxinformation.cbic.gov.in/ In this regard, I also rely on the decision of Sh. K. Lall. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO F. No. CIC-AT-A-2007-00112 wherein the CIC had held that - unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely 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.
Further as decided by the CIC in F.No.CIC-AT-A-2007-00940 on 15th October, 2007 in the case of L.K. Verma -information-seeker cannot demand from a public authority its opinion and seek its advice in a matter of their interest. Anything which is intangible such as interpretations opinions advice explanations reasons cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2f of the RTI Act.
Further, I rely on the decision made by the Central Information Commission in Decision No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/186064 dated 28.12.2017 in the case of Avinash Agarwal vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, which reiterates as under:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information: or to furnish replies to situational queries: or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO can only provide information available with him or held by him. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to take CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 4 of 12 certain action or initiate action as desired by him. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 23.09.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.10.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 03.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.02.2024 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Whether the amendments carried by the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2023 more specially vide sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3, 4 and 5 of the said Act shall be implemented prospectively or retrospectively or retroactively?"
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.09.2023 stating as under:
"The provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Rules/Notifications/Orders prescribed thereunder are freely available on public domain and the same may kindly be accessed through the website as detailed below:
www.gst.gov.in www.gstcouncil.gov.in www.chic.gov.in CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 5 of 12 www.gstn.gov.in https://taxinformation.cbic.gov.in/ In this regard, I also rely on the decision of Sh. K. Lall. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO F. No. CIC-AT-A-2007-00112 wherein the CIC had held that - unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely 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.
Further as decided by the CIC in F.No.CIC-AT-A-2007-00940 on 15th October, 2007 in the case of L.K. Verma -information-seeker cannot demand from a public authority its opinion and seek its advice in a matter of their interest. Anything which is intangible such as interpretations opinions advice explanations reasons cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2f of the RTI Act.
In this regard I also rely on the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011 (8) SCC 497, wherein, it was held as under:
35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of information and right to information under clauses(f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 6 of 12 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 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
11. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03-02-2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 03.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.10.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 06.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.02.2024 Information sought:
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Whether the decisions of the GST Council taken during the 50th and 51st GST Council meeting pertaining to online gaming and casinos will be implemented prospectively or retrospectively or retroactively?"
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.10.2023 stating as under:
"The provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Rules/Notifications/Orders prescribed thereunder are freely available on public domain and the same may kindly be accessed through the website as detailed below:
www.gst.gov.in www.gstcouncil.gov.in CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 7 of 12 www.cbic.gov.in www.gstn.gov.in https://taxinformation.cbic.gov.in/ In this regard, I also rely on the decision of Sh. K. Lall. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO F. No. CIC-AT-A-2007-00112 wherein the CIC had held that - unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely 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.
Further as decided by the CIC in F.No.CIC-AT-A-2007-00940 on 15th October, 2007 in the case of L.K. Verma -information-seeker cannot demand from a public authority its opinion and seek its advice in a matter of their interest. Anything which is intangible such as interpretations opinions advice explanations reasons cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2f of the RTI Act.
Further, I rely on the decision made by the Central Information Commission in Decision No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/186064 dated 28.12.2017 in the case of Avinash Agarwal vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, which reiterates as under:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information: or to furnish replies to situational queries: or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO can only provide information available with him or held by him. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
15. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 8 of 12
16. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 05.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.10.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 31.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.02.2024 Information sought:
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Whether various GST field formations across the country have written to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to clarify issues pertaining to imposition of a 28% GST on online gaming the taxable base to do so, before fresh notices are issued/older notices are proceeded with? If so, please provide the details thereof or copies of such representations?"
18. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.10.2023 stating as under:
"No such information is available with GST-Investigation Wing, CBIC."
19. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 31.10.2023, held as under:
"5. The undersigned has gone through the RTI application, reply of the CPIO, GST-Investigation, CBIC and RTI appeal filed by the appellant in detail.
6. On perusal of the records, it is found that the appellant filed an RTI application before the CPIO, GST Investigation, CBIC, New Delhi seeking CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 9 of 12 information as mentioned at Para 1 above. The RTI application was disposed off by the CPIO citing that the "No such information is available with GST-Investigation Wing, CВІС"
7. I find that the appellant had sought information about the representations received from GST field formations to clarify issues pertaining to imposition of 28% GST on online gaming, before fresh notices are issued/older notices are proceeded with. I find that the CPIO has given reply stating that no such information is available with GST Investigation Wing. I find that the CIPO's reply to the appellant is not proper as it is not forthcoming from the reply, whether the representations as mentioned in RTI application were received or not. CPIO ought to have given appropriate reply in this regard whether such representations have been received from field formations or otherwise.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed with direction to CPIO, GST Investigation Wing to provide information to the appellant as sought vide RTI application dated 12.09.2023 within 07 working days from the date of this order."
20. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent: Dr. Nitin Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/CPIO, appeared in person.
21. Proof of having served copies of Second Appeals on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are 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.
22. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI applications filed by the Appellant do not seek any specific record, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 10 of 12 document, or information available or held by the public authority. Rather, the Appellant has sought clarification, interpretation, opinion, and determination regarding the legal effect and temporal operation of statutory amendments and policy decisions, which is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that the provisions of the GST laws, amendments thereto, notifications, circulars, and orders are already available in the public domain and accessible through official websites. The Respondent contended that the Central Public Information Officer is not required under the RTI Act to interpret laws, provide legal opinions, or clarify hypothetical or inferential queries raised by an applicant.
23. The Respondent placed reliance on settled legal position as reiterated by the Central Information Commission and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the judgment in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein it has been categorically held that a public authority is not required to furnish information that involves drawing inferences, making assumptions, or providing opinions or advice.
Decision:
24. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the queries raised in the RTI applications primarily seek answers to questions such as whether certain amendments or decisions would apply prospectively, retrospectively, or retroactively. Such questions require interpretation of statutes and policy decisions and do not pertain to any identifiable material or information existing on record.
25. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, "information" means material in any form which is held by or under the control of a public authority. The RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the CPIO to interpret laws, predict legal consequences, or provide opinions or clarifications on legislative intent.
26. The Commission further observes that the replies furnished by the CPIOs were appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authorities have also correctly upheld the replies of the CPIOs after due consideration.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 11 of 12
27. As regards Appeal No. CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691, the Commission notes that the CPIO categorically stated that no such information was available with the GST Investigation Wing. The RTI Act does not mandate the creation of information or compilation of data which is not held by the public authority. The Commission also takes note that the Appellant remained absent during the hearing and no written submissions were placed on record to controvert the stand taken by the Respondent.
28. In view of the above facts and settled legal position, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the Respondent Public Authority. Accordingly, the Commission finds no reasons to intervene in the matter.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, Delhi 110001 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605678, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605679, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605681, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605684 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/605691 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)