Central Information Commission
Pankajkumar Bhailalbhai Patel vs Department Of Revenue on 27 December, 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/DOREV/A/2021/611383
Pankajkumar Bhailalbhai Patel ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, 5th Floor
NDMC Building, Yashwant Place,
New Delhi- 110021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/08/2022
Date of Decision : 16/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 04/11/2020
First appeal filed on : 23/11/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 23/12/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/03/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.10.2020 seeking the following information:
1. "Certified copy of the application submitted by applicant Foster Wheeler (G.B.) Limited, (FWGB).1
2. Certified copy of affidavit submitted by the applicant Foster Wheeler (G.B.) Limited, (FWGB) with respect to affidavit explaining the nature of services provided by Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, UK (FWEL) to the India project office.
3. Certified Copies of the all the invoices issued to FWEL submitted during this proceedings.
4.Certified Copies of all the documents submitted by applicant in this proceedings."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply and denied information to the appellant on 04.11.2020 stating as follows:-
"The requisite information is in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets/ intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the applicant and therefore exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, the proceedings before the Authority are not open to public as per Rule 24 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2020. FAA's order dated 23.12.2020 observed as under:
"4. The CPIO vide his communication F.No.124/AARNC/FAA/2020-21dated 04.11.2020 had denied to provide documents sought by the Appellant. The CPIO contended that the information sought by the Appellant was in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the applicant and therefore exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO had further maintained that the proceedings before the Authority were not open to public as per Rule 24 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996. The Appellant in his appeal has submitted the following issues for decision:
i. Whether the information sought by the Appellant is exempt under Section 8(1)(d)?
ii. Whether Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 restricts disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant?
iii. Whether the information sought has larger Public Interest?
4.1 The Authority for Advance Rulings is a high-level body headed by a retired judge of Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court which is 2 empowered to issue rulings which are binding both on the income-tax Department and the applicant. This Authority is a quasi-judicial body having full power of a civil court under the Income Tax Act to give its rulings in respect of complex questions of law or fact eliminating long drawn litigations. As per the procedure laid down under Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996, the content of the application are not disclosed to unauthorised persons. Only the applicant and the concerned Commissioner are permitted to attend the proceedings. Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 specifically lays down that the proceedings are not open to the public. Further Rule 22 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 allows inspection of documents only to the applicant or the Commissioner or an authorized representative. However, they are allowed to inspect only those documents which have been relied upon in the proceedings before the Authority. The inspection is allowed only in presence of an officer of the Authority and the applicant may be permitted to take notes of inspection but not take copies of any documents. Thus the documents filed with the Authority are treated as confidential in order to protect the privacy of applicants. Even internationally, confidentiality of proceedings and publication is practiced in varying degree. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of 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. The application filed before the Authority and the supporting documents contain information which is of the nature of commercial confidence and trade secrets the disclosure of which may harm their competitive position. Thus, I find that the information sought by the Appellant is exempt under Section 8(1)(d).
4.2. When it is established that the information sought by the Appellant are exempt under Section 8(1)(d), the next step is to examine whether larger public interest would be served if disclosure of such information is allowed. The Appellant has contended that the information sought is related to a big contract of worth around Rs. 2 crore given by IOCL, a PSU to Foreign Country and the issue is related to the relaxation to the tax liability of a foreign company and the process of giving relaxation in tax liability to the foreign country primarily falls under the bonafide right of the citizens of India to scrutinize the process of such relaxation and at the same time the public authority is under statutory obligation to allow the public scrutiny. While going through the provisions of the Advance Rulings I find that non-resident applicants and resident applicants having transactions with a non-
resident can apply for advance rulings under Section 245N of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover, most of the transactions where the advance rulings are sought 3 are high value transactions. Thus, the contention that scrutiny of relaxation in tax liability given to a foreign company would qualify as larger public interest does not appear to be justifiable as most of the rulings passed by the Authority would fall under the said category. If such contention is accepted then all proceedings of international taxations where advance rulings have been sought would be liable for disclosure of confidential information leading to invasion of tax-payers' privacy. Thus, the Appellant has not provided sufficient grounds to support his contention that disclosure of information would be in larger public interest. Moreover, as per Rule 25 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 only those rulings are published which the Chairman of the Authority deems fit for publication. The ruling AAR.No.1003 of 2010 dated 10.08.2016 was published keeping in mind the larger public interest and the issue of relaxation of tax liability has been discussed in the order and published for scrutiny of public. It needs to be appreciated that the Authority for Advance Rulings holds the information supplied by the applicants as a trustee in order to adjudicate the matter and provide advance rulings in complex matters of taxation. It is a mechanism for ease of doing business where the applicants can approach the Authority on its own volition and seek clarity on law and facts related to their proposed or ongoing transactions. The provisions of Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996 intend to ensure that information trusted upon the Authority is maintained confidentially. I thus find that the Appellant has not been able to establish a case of larger public interest.
4.3. The Appellant has further submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act enumerates that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything against it, as mentioned in Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any other law for the time being or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law. He has argued that the CPIO has attempted to withhold the information at any cost by invoking Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996. He has further contended that invoking this rule CPIO should have read Section 22 of RTI Act, 2005. The plain reading of the RTI Act leads to the understanding that the non-obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an Implied repeal of Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996. It only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. I do not find any inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and the Rules laid down under Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996, Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act provides for exemption from disclosure of information if the Information sought includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or Intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1990 lays down that the proceedings before the Authority shall 4 not be open to public and no person, other than the applicant, the Commissioner or their authorised representatives shall, without the permission of the Authority, remain present during such proceedings. This provision envisages safeguarding the commercial confidence and trade secret of the applicant seeking advance rulings in respect of their business transaction. Thus the provisions of Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996 are in harmony with the provisions Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and are therefore not inconsistent.
4.4. The Appellant as also argued that It Is necessary that when Information Is denied based on the provision of Section 8, the parson denying the Information must give his subjective assessment that such information would be denied to Parliament or State legislature if sought. I find that the Appellant has tried to give overriding reach to the first proviso to Section 8 of the RTI Act, The Parliament has in its wisdom, visualized certain exemptions and Section 8 lists those exemptions; it opens with a non obstante clause, signifying the intention that irrespective of the rights of the information seeker, in regard to matters listed under that provision, the information providers can Justifiably withhold access to the information seeker the record, information or queries sought for by him, if the legislative intent was to give overriding reach to the proviso of Section 8 the exemptions provided in the aforementioned section would not have any meaning. As for exemption provided at Section 8(1)(d) the test of larger public interest Is paramount which the Appellant has not been able to establish in his favour.
5. Based on the above discussions I find that the CPIO has been correct In holding that the information sought by the applicant are exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Mukesh, Sr.PPS & CPIO present through audio conference. The Appellant reiterated most of the contents of his written submissions dated 31.08.2022 as well as the grounds of the Second Appeal, relevant portions of which are reproduced hereunder:5
"A. Regarding invoking Section 8(1)(d) for denying Information in this instant Case.
In this instant case, it's a pre-decided & motivated denial of the information i.e. denial of fundamental Right of citizen by most of public authorities in such cases!! Instead of working proactively for the Transparency & Good governance, finding the ways to deny the legitimate fundamental rights of the citizens by picking up convenient excuses in the name of empty justification by invoking of in- appropriate exception clauses and the precedents. Thinking that what will do a helpless, poor citizen alone? And at the same time looking to the unfortunate condition of the Backlogs of Appeals of RTIs with CIC & Judiciary will take several years to decide, so nothing will be happened to their accountability/responsibility. It is most pertinent here to be mentioned that the information I sought in this subjected RTI, I already sought earlier from the department of revenue and it is to be looked upon the response of the public authority that what they have done with my Right to Information. I am providing information of the same with this submission.
I. I filed RTI online with registration No. DOFSR/R/2019/50696 dated 29/05/2019, II. The same was transferred to the concerned CPIO by Nodal Officer with new Registration No. DOREV/R/2019/80595 on 29/05/2019.
III. The CPIO, Department of revenue has transferred the RTI to CBDT with new registration No. CBODT/R/2019/80790 on the same date i.e. 29/05/2019.
IV. Then the CPIO, CBDT re-transferred my RTI to Department of revenue with new Registration No. DOREV/R/2019/80638 on 11/06/2019.
V. Again, the CPIO, Department of Revenue has re-transferred my RTI to CBDT with new registration No. CBODT/R/2019/80843 on 12/06/2019.
VI. Then Then the CPIO, CBDT Transferred to Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Chennai on 25/06/2019 with new registration No. CCACH/R/2019/80054.
VII. Then the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA),Chennai has transferred my RTI Physically to IT Officer (Hq), O/oCIT (Transfer Pricing), Chennai.
VIII. Finally, the information has not been provided by the public authority. IX. The fact is that there was not at all any relation to the information I had sought in my RTI with the Chennai Income Tax Offices.
The appellant prays before the Hon'ble CIC that the principle of natural justice be followed and it is to be decided first that the information, the appellant sought in RTI, how it falls under section 8(1)(d)? as it is by basic legal right to know under the principle of Natural Justice.6
XXX C. Regarding invoking Rule No. 24 of The Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedures)Rules 1996 for denying Information in instant case.
Here I relied on two important judgements and Finance Act 2021:
I. The CIC judgement of Full Bench in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta v/s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) II. The judgement of the Apex Court, The Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1966-1967 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5840 of 2015.
III. The section 245W (1) of The Finance Act 2021, The applicant, if he is aggrieved by any ruling pronounced or order by Board for Advance Ruling or the Assessing Officer, on the directions of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, may appeal to the High Court against such ruling or order of the Board of Advance Ruling within sixty days from the date of the communication of that ruling or order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
According to the CIC judgement in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta v/s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in Decision Notice in para-No. 51, The Section 4(1)(d) applies to the Authority of Advance Ruling (Income Tax).
The Authority of Advance Ruling (Income Tax) is neither a tribunal nor a court, it is only an administrative - quasi-Judicial Authority.
In reference to the judgement of the Apex Court, The Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1966-1967 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5840 of 2015, There is no rule or any provision with The Authority of Advance Ruling (Income Tax) for providing the certified copies of the proceedings & orders to the third parties like the Rule No. 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993."
Further, following contents of the Appellant's Second Appeal is also reproduced here for clarity:
"CPIO attempted to withhold the information at any cost by invoking Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules, 1996. These rules are limited to the proceedings only. Before invoking this rule CPIO must read the Section 22 of RTI Act 2005. Act to have overriding effect - Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. Then Section 24, which mandates even security and intelligence organizations to disclose information on corruption and human rights.."7
"The Information is having Larger Public Interest :
Foster Wheeler (G.B.) Limited have been awarded services contracts by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for the Paradip Refinery Project, in Orissa State in around year 2008. The contract was of around Rs. 2000/- crore. The company applied to the AAR (income Tax) for considering some of expenses for deduction from the income incurred by third party (A Group Company). The above said ruling of AAR (Income-Tax) is highly suspected of error, abuse of power for personal gain. The matter was of huge amount (Amount in Crores of rupees) of tax relaxation to a Foreign Country. The proceedings at AAR(Income-Tax) was for the interpretation of the law/rule of income tax, as the proceedings are over, the order is published, no prosecution is pending then the basis of such ruling must be available for the scrutiny which is the very basis of the RTI Act-2005.
The RTI Act -2005 does not exempt files or information labelled 'confidential' as exempt. Classification as 'confidential' is an internal procedure and cannot be used to deny information, since the RTI Act has not exempted this category, there is either information which is exempted under Section 8 or information to be disclosed."
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and emphasised on the detailed FAA's order and relied on his written submissions sent prior to the hearing wherein the following was stated inter alia-
"4. (i) The scheme of advance rulings was introduced by the Finance Act, 1993, Chapter XIX-B of the Income-tax, 1961 which deals with advance rulings, came into force w.e.f. 01.06.1993. Under the scheme the power of giving advance rulings has been entrusted to an independent adjudicatory body headed by a retired Judge of Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court which is empowered to issue rulings which are binding both on the income-tax Department and the applicant.
(ii) The definition of "advance ruling" is given in Section 245N of the Income- tax Act, 1961. A copy of the same is at Annexure-B.
(iii) There is also a provision of rules to be followed while determining the applications filed before the Hon'ble Authority which is called "Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to "AAR. Rules" . A copy of the same is placed at Annexure-C. 8
(iv) As per Rule 5 of AAR Rules, the Authority shall hear and determine the application made under sub-section (1) of Section 245Q of the Act and such other applications, petitions and representations of on interlocutory, incidental or ancillary nature as may be necessary for a complete and effective disposal of the applications, as the Chairman may by general or special order direct.
(v) As per Rule 7(3) of AAR Rules, the Secretary shall also have the following powers and duties namely:-
(i) to (viii) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
(ix) to grant certified copies of the orders of the Authority to the parties
(x) to grant certified copies of documents filed in the proceedings to the parties in accordance with the rules: and
(vi) As per Rule 21(1) of AAR Rules the Secretary may order grant of additional certified copies of documents or orders to the applicant or the Commissioner on a written request made by either of them.
(vii) As per Rule 22(1) of AAR Rules, the applicant or the Commissioner or an authorised representative may be allowed to inspect the records of the case on making an application in writing to the Secretary provided that only those documents shall be allowed to be inspected which have been relied upon in the proceedings before the Authority. Further Rule 22(2) says the inspection shall be allowed only in the presence of an officer of the Authority and the applicant may be permitted to make notes of inspection but not to take copies of any document.
(viii) As per Rule 24 of AAR Rules, proceedings before the Authority shall not be open to the public and no person, other than the applicant, the Commissioner or their authorised representatives shall, without the permission of the Authority, remain present during such proceedings. It shows that all proceedings held before the Hon'ble Authority for determining the transaction/tax liability etc. as per the mandate given under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and AAR Rules be considered confidential in nature and the documents, submissions etc. made by the parties (i.e. Applicant and the Commissioner) during the proceedings or as per the directions of the Hon'ble Authority be considered part and parcel of the proceedings. To support this submission, the provisions of Rule 22 (1) of AAR Rules i.e.....those documents shall be allowed to be inspected which have been relied upon in the proceedings before the Authority be read with Rule 24 of AAR Rules.9
(ix) As per Rule 25 of AAR Rules the orders of the Authority, as the Chairman deems fit for publications in any authoritative report or the press, may be released for such publication on such terms and conditions as the Chairman may specify.
Hence discretion of publications of orders lies with the Chairman only.
6. That in support of submissions made by the then CPIO and First Appellate Authority of respondent's office that proceedings shall not be open to the public and no person, other than the applicant, the Commissioner or their authorised representatives may be considered in the nature of confidential under Rule 24 of AAR, a judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 190/2012 is relied upon wherein the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the confidentiality of the documents sought by the appellant in that case have been discussed. A copy of the same is placed at Annexure-D.
7. That as regards on the issue of larger public interest, the submissions given by the then First Appellate Authority at point no. 4.2 of the order dated 23.12.2020 is reiterated.
8. That Annexure-VII containing Clause-8 of confidentiality between the parties of the agreement filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble Authority is relevant for consideration..."
Decision:
The Commission having heard the Appellant at length and upon perusing the enormous facts on record observes that there is adequate material particularly, the FAA's order to prove that the public authority has duly justified the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act by relying on the confidentiality aspect of the averred records envisaged under Rule 24 of Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996. The FAA vide paras 4.1 to 4.4 has threadbare dealt with each of the contentions of the Appellant against the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act; the rationale of reading Rule 24 of Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 into the matter; the reason for discrediting the claim of larger public interest argued by the Appellant. Taking cue from the FAA's order, the CPIO has also discharged the onus of justifying the denial of the information as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, which provides as under:10
"(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Even as the CPIO & FAA have very well justified the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Appellant's insistence that the CPIO should further justify the right of the third party to the protection of the information related to its commercial operations appears to be labored and bereft of merit.
Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision 11 simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the averred third-party in any of the above referred contexts, the Commission finds no reason to depart from the view taken by the FAA.
Similarly, adverting to the arguments of the Appellant against putting forth the provisions of Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 by the public authority for justifying the denial of the information, the Commission draws the attention of the Appellant to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of ASHOK KUMAR GOEL vs. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER VAT WARD NO 64 & ANR in LPA 190/2012 dated 07.03.2012 that dealt with a similar question of law as under:12
"5. We have already reproduced the nature of information which the appellant seeks. It is essentially related to the returns filed by the respondent No.2's firm with the Sales Tax Commissioner and on the basis of which the respondent No.2's firm has been paying the VAT. Section 98 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 makes such returns confidential and specifically stipulates that all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act, other than proceedings before a criminal Court shall be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no court shall, save as aforesaid, be entitled to require any servant of the Government to produce before it any such statement, return, account, document or record or any part thereof, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof. Thus this provision protects and insulates the persons filing such returns and even the Court is not entitled to summon the records except when the proceedings are before a Criminal Court or what is saved under Sub-Section (3) of Section 98 of the Act. Not only this, Sub-Section (2) Section 98 of the Act provides for punishment with imprisonment upon the government servant who discloses such information. Emphasis Supplied
6. Provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act are to be interpreted, in the present context, keeping in view the provisions of Section 98 of the Act. Provisions of Section 8(1)(d) reads as under:
"8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(a) ...............
(b) ...............
(c) .....................
(d) 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."
7. It is not in dispute that the information in the form of returns filed by the respondent No.2's firm is in the nature of commercial confidence which is clearly inferable from Section 98 of the Act. Such information can be given only if larger public interest warrants the disclosure of this information. All the authorities below including the learned Single Judge has held and rightly so that 13 no public interest is at all involved in seeking of this information by the appellant from the Sales Tax Commissioner." Emphasis Supplied The foregoing contents further exemplify the fact that the Appellant in the instant matter has misconstrued the purport of putting forth the relevant aspects of the Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 to mean that Section 22 of the RTI Act will override the same, when in fact, the denial of the information is under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and not under the Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996. In other words, Section 22 of the RTI Act cannot negate the confidentiality accrued within the meaning of the exemption of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act to the records of a third party.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
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 / 14