Central Information Commission
Manish Malik vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 17 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209
Manish Malik ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of
CGST, GST Bhawan, Block C&D,
New CGO Complex, NH-IV,
B-Block, Faridabad - 121001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026
Date of Decision : 16.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 29.06.2024 and 05.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 10.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.11.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Reference:- F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/1527/2024-TECH-O/0 COMMR- CGST-FARIDABAD dt 20.06.24 CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 1 of 15 Supply of Information under RTI Act 2005- Rejoinder in reply dt 06.09.24- in RTI dt 20.05.24 Please refer to your email dt 20.06.24 & reply dt 06.09.24 vide which your good self has sent the partial reply in RTI dt 20.05.24. The provided reply is without jurisdiction, incomplete, false, artificial & misleading for the details given as under-
1- Certified copies of the reply/record has not been provided till date, therefore please give the certified copy of each page of reply & attachment as prescribed u/s 2 (f) & 7(1) of the RTI Act & Article 19 of the Constitution of India as per RTI.
2- Copy of the transfer letter issued u/s 6(3) and/or 5(4) and the reply received from the respective office is not given, therefore please provide the same in the interest of justice. In addition to above the point-wise deficiencies in the provided reply is given as under-
Point No-1- Irrelevant reply provided therefore rejoinder dt 29.06.24 repeated & reproduced hereunder-
"The provided reply is totally false and not as per requested information rather self-created. None of the replies requested vide letter dt 26.02.24, 30.02.24 & 25.04.24 is covered in the issued SCN and order in original, otherwise give the relevant page of SCN/Order-in-Original wherein each point of the requested information in letter dt 26.02.24, 30.02.24 & 26.04.24 is given."
Point No.2- The provided reply is totally false and not as per requested information rather self-created. None of the replies requested at point no.2 is covered in the issued SCN and order in original; therefore, please give the relevant page highlighting the requested information. Further please provide jurisdiction and powers of Supdt Range-33. Rewari to adjudicate without having any inquiry report or trustworthy proof of establishment of section 74.
Further providing personal hearing and non-submission of replies does not restrict you to give the requested information.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the information is specifically related to Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Div, Rewari, therefore without giving any reply/record signed by the Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Div, Rewari for the requested information, the reply given by you directly, itself proves the CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 2 of 15 provided reply as incorrect, false, artificial/self-created, misleading and without jurisdiction.
In addition to above the SCN does not contain the details of the inquiry report relied on which the SCN has been issued; therefore, the reply on this aspect is also incorrect & false.
Point No.- 3- The provided information is not as per requested information rather artificial/self-created. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No.- 4- The provided information is not as per requested information rather artificial/self-created. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No.5- The provided reply is incomplete & misleading because neither-e-way bills ids are created nor any e-way bill issued by me till date, therefore either provide the id & password to check the correctness of your reply or provide copy of each e-way bill in the interest of justice without further delay otherwise your reply will be treated as incorrect & false. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No.7- The provided reply is incomplete & misleading, therefore either provide the id & password to check the correctness of your reply or provide a copy of each e-way bill in the interest of justice without further delay otherwise your reply will be treated as incorrect & false. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No.-8- The information belongs to Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Div, Rewari, therefore giving information without providing any signed document from the side of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Div, Rewari itself proves that the provided reply is without jurisdiction, incorrect, false and not as per requested information. Further please provide jurisdiction and powers of Supdt Range-33. Rewari to adjudicate without having any inquiry report or trustworthy proof of establishment of section 74.
Point No.9- Proof of establishing third party information i.e (the date, time, other details, your observation and recorded reasons relied on which you decided that the requested information covered u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 2005 & not related to me being the same would impede the process of investigation but you have failed to give the recorded reason CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 3 of 15 relied on which you decided that you cannot provide the same to the Parliament or a State Legislature if they are demanded by Parliament or a State Legislature.
Please refer the ruling issued by Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Bhagat Singh Cs Central Information Commission & ors, AIC 284, 2008 page 284 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that Information cannot be denied only on the ground that it will impede the process of the investigation unless the PIO will not provide the cogent and trustworthy proof, how the same will impede the investigation. Therefore, denial of the investigation report is incorrect and bad in law.
Further in the mentioned case you have also failed to intimate the status of the inquiry i.e. whether the investigation is under process or same is completed, therefore not providing the correct complete information is against the ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court as held in Case of Vivek Anupam Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra & Or 27.02.15 Case no. 6961 of 2012, wherein it was ordered by the Hon'ble Court to register an FIR against the PIO for not giving the correct/complete available/permissible information against the fundamental right of the information seeker.
You have further spoiled the interest of RTI seeker as given under Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India against the fundamental right, therefore failed to comply with the ruling given by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in Case of Kolkata University vs Pritam Rooj 2009 AIR.
Under the position explained above your intentions are found bad & mala fide as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Zee Telefilms Ltd & Anr Vs Union of India AIR 2005 SC 2677.
Therefore, please give the requested record/information.
Point No. 10- The provided information is not as per requested information rather artificial/self-created. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No- 11 You have neither transferred the RTI to the concerned office, where the requested information is available nor provided the record relied on which you said that the information does not pertain to your office, therefore your reply is incorrect, false & misleading with intent to CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 4 of 15 cause wrongful loss to me. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point. For further details please refer point no 9 above.
Point No -12- The provided reply is incorrect & false as the provided summons are not issued in compliance of section 74 of the CGST Act as given in SCN rather issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act to conduct inquiry in case of Mobile Godam, Shop No. 31, Old Court Road, Near Gandhi Chowk, Rewari. The provided summons are only for M/s Mobile Godam, whereas SCN is issued for three firms, therefore the reply is incomplete, incorrect and not as per requested information. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No. 13- The requested information must be available in the record of public authority being GST is always calculated on the basis of available sales/services data which is very well available on the face of order dt 04.04.24 issued by the Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari. In addition to above, the requested information pertains to the office of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore you have no jurisdiction to supply the information without providing the document given to you by Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore your reply is totally incorrect, false & misleading. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No. 14- The provided reply is false and only to mislead. For sake of clarification please read section 155 of the CGST Act which says about availing of input tax credit, whereas the requested information for the receipts deposited in bank account. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
In addition to above, the requested information pertains to the office of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore you have no jurisdiction to supply the information without providing the document given to you by Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore your reply is totally incorrect, false & misleading.
Point No. 15- The provided reply is incomplete. Annexure/Attachment certified copies are not provided. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No. 16- The attached document is a query letter instead of the summon, therefore please give the requested information instead of CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 5 of 15 giving irrelevant replies/record. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No. 17- The provided copy is not legible and without attachment, therefore please provide a legible certified copy with all attachments. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point No. 18- The provided information is incorrect as per para 5 of the SCN as well as order dated 04-04-24. In addition to above, the requested information pertains to the office of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore you have no jurisdiction to supply the information without providing the document given to you by Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore your reply is totally incorrect, false & misleading. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point no 19:- The provided information is incorrect as per para 5 of the SCN as well as order dated 04-04-24. In addition to above, the requested information pertains to the office of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore you have no jurisdiction to supply the information without providing the document given to you by Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore your reply is totally incorrect, false & misleading. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point no 20:-The provided information is incorrect as per para 5 of the SCN as well as order dated 04-04-24. In addition to above, the requested information pertains to the office of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore you have no jurisdiction to supply the information without providing the document given to you by Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari, therefore your reply is totally incorrect, false & misleading. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point no 21:-The provided information is irrelevant being related to Superintendent range 33 CGST Rewari & illegally replied by you without giving any record. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
Point no 22:- The provided information is irrelevant being relates to Superintendent range 33 CGST Rewari & illegally replied by you without giving any record. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point.
CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 6 of 15Point no 23:- Instead of giving relevant records i.e. the personal hearing letter dt 30.01.24, 15.02.24 & 13.03.24 you provided the incorrect & irrelevant information without jurisdiction for the office of Supdt. Range- 34, CGST, Rewari without providing any letter from the side of Supdt. Range-34, CGST, Rewari as per reply given at point no. 8 & 9 of letter no. 823 dt 05.09.24 in RTI dt 06.06.24.
Point no 24: The requested information is noted in the issued order dt 04.04.24, therefore the requested information is available in the record of the concerned public authority office but Instead of giving relevant records i.e. Each record of Annexure A, Annexure B, Annexure C and Table B of point 12 of the order you provided the incorrect & irrelevant information without jurisdiction for the office of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari without providing any letter from the side of Supdt. Range-33, CGST, Rewari. Therefore, rejoinder dt 29.06.24 is repeated for this point. Point no 25: You have changed your stand by denying the information taking shelter of section 8(1)(g), whereas this section is not applicable in my case.
The information directly relates to the information seeker therefore section 8(1)(g) is not applicable in the case of the RTI seeker as intimated vide rejoinder dt 12.07.24. Further the information are for the proceedings done by the department in the case of summons issued on different dates & against the ruling of case issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Through Secretary To... vs Nishan Singh (Deceased) Thr. L.R.S. on 4 July, 2018, SLP (Civil) 14273/2018 because the reasoning to deny the information under the ibid section is nowhere given in the provided information.
Likewise in case of S C Chauhan vs Central Vigilance Commission on 21 May, 2019, it is observed by Hon'ble CIC that denial of information u/s 8(1)(g) is not justified if the desired information is required to fight against corruption and to challenge an illegal/unlawful order. Under the position explained above the denial of information u/s 8(1)(g) is incorrect/illegal because the required information is to fight against corruption & to challenge an order passed under illegal & unlawful manner & further the denial is without any reasoning.
The provided information is incorrect & false for the reason given at point no. 9. Further the requested information is provided at point no. 1 to 6, therefore the requested information is available in the record of the CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 7 of 15 concerned public authority office but instead of giving relevant records of custodian of records you provided the incorrect & irrelevant information without jurisdiction for the office of Supdt. Range-34/33, CGST, Rewari without providing any letter from the side of Supdt. Range-34/33, CGST, Rewari Point no 26- Please provide each record if same is available on portal.
Point 27- The inspection of the original record was also requested in the RTI dt 20.05.24 & same is offered on 27.09.24 but you failed to provide the correct complete information/record as per the ruling as held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Arora Advocate Vs Public Information Officer, Punjab & Haryana High Court, (2012) RCR Civil Page No. 926, therefore please give the correct/complete information, thereafter I will send you the inspection letter as prescribed u/s 4 of RTI Act to arrange & give inspection of the original record in RTI, your replies & rejoinders.
Under the position explained above please provide correct/complete certified copies of the requested information as per the above rejoinder."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 29.06.2024 stating as under:
"1. The information was not sought under RTI. The information/ documents sought i.e. GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-9 etc. were already available with them on the portal. Further the case was adjudicated by following principal natural of justice and the appealable OIO was duly provided to them. Thus, it was considered that the information/ documents sought vide letter 26.02.2024, 30.03.2024 and 26.04.2024, being already available with them on portal, were infructuous.
2. Initial Investigation in this case was carried out by Anti-Evasion, CGST Faridabad, after with SCN was issued by Anti-Evasion branch, wherein Superintendent, Range-33 was made Adjudicating Authority, Further, range office has merely decided the case on the basis of facts available on records and reply of the taxpayer, on merits by following the principle of Natural justice.
3. No sale bill resumed by this office.CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 8 of 15
4. No purchase bill resumed by this office.
5. Available with taxpayer's e-way portal.
6. Certified copies of Bank statements already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024, certified copy of Bank Statement in r/o Indian Bank (Now Allahabad Bank) is attached.
7. Available on taxpayer's e-way portal.
8. Initial Investigation in this case was carried out by Anti-Evasion, CGST Faridabad, after which SCN was issued by Anti-Evasion branch, wherein Superintendent, Range-33 was made Adjudication Authority. Further, range office has merely decided the case on the basis of facts available on records and reply of the taxpayer, on merits by following the Principle of Natural justice.
9. Third party data cannot be provided under Section8(1) (d) of RTI Act.2005.
10. No sale bills resumed by this office.
11. Investigation started on the basis of information. Therefore, details of information cannot be provided under section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
12. Certified copy of summon issued from this office has already been provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
13. Not provided by the taxpayers.
14. The taxpayer failed to prove that the whole amount did not pertain to sale.
15. Certified copy of the said letter already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
16. Certified copy of the said letter already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
17. Certified copy of the said letter already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 9 of 15
18. No excel sheet provided by CA Anil Kumar.
19. No such vital information provided by the CA.
20. No such copies of e-way bills provided by CA Anil Kumar.
21. No such data available with this office.
22. No such data available with this office.
23. Certified copies of personal hearing letters attached.
24. Demand raised on the basis of DRC-01A (Certified copy attached).
25. Third party information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005/the information denied in terms of Sec 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.
26. All documents available on taxpayers GST portal."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.08.2024, held as under:
"4. Discussion and findings
(i) I have carefully gone through the records available as well as appeal grounds submitted in appeal application. I found that CPIO, CGST Faridabad vide his letter dated 20.06.2024 has provided the part information in reply to the RTI application. Further the applicant did not appear on personal hearing in response to his appeal.
(ii) I have examined the facts on record. Some information has not been provided to the applicant. I direct CPIO to seek the complete information available with the jurisdictional authorities concerned.
(iii) The information provided by CPIO is on the basis of the inputs given by the jurisdictional authorities. There is no mala fide intention on the part of CPIO for not providing the information which he is in possession of. The provision for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable at this time.
5. ORDER CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 10 of 15 In view of the above facts, I allow the appeal and direct the CPIO to reconsider his application and give the factual information sought in the original RTI within 15 days in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
4. In compliance of the above order, the CPIO vide letter dated 05.09.2024 provided revised reply to the Appellant stating as under:
1. The information was not sought under RTI. The information/documents sought i.e. GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-9 etc. were already available with them on the portal. Further the case was adjudicated by following principal natural of justice and the appealable OIO was duly provided to them. Thus, it was considered that the information/ documents sought vide letter 26.02.2024, 30.03.2024 and 26.04.2024, being already available with them on portal, were infructuous.
2. Initial Investigation in this case was carried out by Anti-Evasion, CGST Faridabad, after with SCN was issued by Anti-Evasion branch, wherein Superintendent, Range-33 was made Adjudicating Authority, Further, range office has merely decided the case on the basis of facts available on records and reply of the taxpayer, on merits by following the principle of Natural justice.
3. No sale bill resumed by this office.
4. No purchase bill resumed by this office.
5. Available with taxpayer's e-way portal.
6. Certified copies of Bank statements already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024, certified copy of Bank Statement in r/o Indian Bank (Now Allahabad Bank) is attached.
7. Available on taxpayer's e-way portal.
8. Initial Investigation in this case was carried out by Anti-Evasion, CGST Faridabad, after which SCN was issued by Anti-Evasion branch, wherein Superintendent, Range-33 was made Adjudication Authority. Further, range office has merely decided the case on the basis of facts available on records and reply of the taxpayer, on merits by following the Principle of Natural justice.CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 11 of 15
9. Third party data cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.2005.
10. No sale bills resumed by this office.
11. Investigation started on the basis of information. Therefore, details of information cannot be provided under section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
12. Certified copy of summon issued from this office has already been provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
13. Not provided by the taxpayers.
14. The taxpayer failed to prove that the whole amount did not pertain to sale.
15. Certified copy of the said letter already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
16. Certified copy of the said letter already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
17. Certified copy of the said letter already provided vide RTI reply dated 20.06.2024.
18. No excel sheet provided by CA Anil Kumar.
19. No such vital information provided by the CA.
20. No such copies of e-way bills provided by CA Anil Kumar.
21. No such data is available with this office.
22. No such data is available with this office.
23. Certified copies of personal hearing letters attached.
24. Demand raised on the basis of DRC-01A (Certified copy attached).
25. Third party information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005/the information denied in terms of Sec 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 12 of 15
26. All documents available on taxpayers GST portal."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Radheyshyam Meena, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO, appeared in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 07.11.2024 is available on record.
7. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the Respondent was incomplete and misleading. He argued that the CPIO did not provide certified copies of the records sought by him and that several responses were self-created rather than based on actual records.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise reply had been provided to the Complainant in response to the RTI application and that the information available on record had already been furnished. It was further submitted that certain documents sought by the Complainant were already available to him on the GST portal and therefore, the same were not required to be provided again. The Respondent also clarified that some information was not available with the office, while certain details related to third-party information and investigation records, which were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Respondent added that after the order of the First Appellate Authority, the RTI application was reconsidered and a revised reply dated 05.09.2024 was issued along with the documents available on record.
CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 13 of 15Decision
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided a point-wise reply to the RTI application and subsequently provided a revised reply in compliance with the directions of the First Appellate Authority. The Commission further notes that several queries raised by the Complainant relate to clarifications, explanations, and redressal of grievance regarding the adjudication proceedings under the CGST Act, which does not strictly fall within the scope of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
10. It is also observed that the Respondent has invoked the relevant exemption provisions of the RTI Act in respect of certain information and has clarified that some of the records are either not available with the office or accessible to the taxpayer through the GST portal.
11. In a complaint proceeding under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission is required to examine whether there was any mala fide denial of information or deliberate obstruction by the CPIO. From the records and submissions placed before the Commission, no such mala fide intent or deliberate denial of information is established. In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no grounds for initiating penal proceedings or for further intervention in the matter.
The Complaint is 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:
CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 14 of 15The FAA, Office of the Commissioner of CGST, GST Bhawan, Block C&D, New CGO Complex, NH-IV, B-Block, Faridabad - 121001 CIC/CBECE/C/2024/649209 Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)