Central Information Commission
S Paulraj vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 15 April, 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/2024/113184
S Paulraj ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Goods and Service Tax Network,
4th Floor, Worldmark 1, East
Wing, Asset 11, Hospitality
District, Aerocity, New Delhi - 110037 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.04.2026
Date of Decision : 15.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 21.03.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information required under RTI Act 6(1) of 2005 about the sharing of IGST to the SGST of the respective States and the total dues of the SGST to be paid to the respective States from the IGST as on 1.1.2024.-Possibilities CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 1 of 8 of sharing IGST to the liabilities of CGST and SGST automatically at the GST Portal during E-Filing of GSTR-1 of each and every E-Fillers.
I bring to your kind notice about the irregularity in GST E filing regarding IGST. It is notable that IGST is the combination of CGST and SGST. During GST E-Filing to the GST Portal, the ITC of IGST is automatically taken to the CGST only and then the E-Filers are permissible to distribute manually among the ITC of CGST and ITC of SGST. But in the case of liability of IGST, the situation is not like that as in the case of ITC of IGST. It will be convenient for the GST E-Filers that during E-Filing to the GST Portal, the liability of IGST should be taken to automatically distribute equally among the CGST and the SGST liabilities. This method will also immediately complete the process of sharing of IGST. In this regard, I require the following information under RTI Act 6(1) of 2005.
Information Required:
1. Information about the sharing of IGST to the SGST of the respective States
2. The total dues of the SGST to be paid to the respective States from the IGST as on 1.1.2024.
3. Possibilities of implementing of sharing the IGST to the liabilities of CGST and SGST automatically at the GST Portal during E-Filing of GSTR-1 of each and every E-Filers."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 21.03.2024 stating as under:
S. Information sought by RTI Applicant Information provided by CPIO No. 1 I bring to your kind notice about the The issue raised by the RTI Applicant irregularity in GST E filing regarding is not maintained by GSTN, since IGST. It is notable that IGST is the GSTN is an executing authority and combination of CGST and SGST. During policy related issues are not dealt by GST E-Filing to the GST Portal, the ITC GSTN. Hence, no further action is of IGST is automatically taken to the required from GSTN.
CGST only and then the E-Filers are permissible to distribute manually among the ITC of CGST and ITC of SGST.
But in the case of liability of IGST, the CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 2 of 8 situation is not like that as in the case of ITC of IGST. It will be convenient for the GST E-Filers that during E-Filing to the GST Portal, the liability of IGST should be taken to automatically distribute equally among the CGST and the SGST liabilities. This method will also immediately complete the process of sharing of IGST. In this regard, I require the following information under RTI Act 6(1) of 2005.
1 Information about the sharing of IGST The information sought by the RTI to the SGST of the respective States. applicant vide Sl. No. 1 and 2 is not maintained by GSTN. Hence, no 2 The total dues of the SGST to be paid to further action is required from GSTN.
the respective States from the IGST as on 1.1.2024.
3 Possibilities of implementing of sharing The information sought by the the IGST to the liabilities of CGST and Applicant vide S. No. 3 do not SGST automatically at the GST Portal constitute "material information"
during E-Filing of GSTR-1 of each and within the meaning of Section 2(f) of every E-Filers. the RTI Act. A public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions.
3. Being dissatisfied, Complainant directly approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Shyam Sunder, Sr. Manager (Legal)/CPIO, Shri Tanuj Hassija, Assistant Manager (Legal), appeared in person.CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 3 of 8
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.04.2024 is available on record.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 07.04.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Complainant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. The Appellant/Complainant, Shri S. Paulraj had filed an RTI Application dated 27.02.2024 which was received by CPIO, Goods and Services Tax Network ("GSTN") on 01.03.2024. The contents of the aforesaid RTI application dated 27. 02.2024 is as under:
I bring to your kind notice about the irregularity in GST E filing regarding IGST. It is notable that IGST is the combination of CGST and SGST. During GST E-Filing to the GST Portal, the ITC of IGST is automatically taken to the CGST only and then the E-Filers are permissible to distribute manually among the ITC of CGST and ITC of SGST. But in the case of liability of IGST, the situation is not like that as in the case of ITC of IGST. It will be convenient for the GST E-Filers that during E-Filing to the GST Portal, the liability of IGST should be taken to automatically distribute equally among the CGST and the SGST liabilities. This method will also immediately complete the process of sharing of IGST. In this regard, I require the following information under RTI Act 6(1) of 2005.
Information Required:
(1) Information about the sharing of IGST to the SGST of the respective States.
(2) The total dues of the SGST to be paid to the respective States from the IGST as on 1.1.2024.
(3) Possibilities of implementing of sharing the IGST to the liabilities of CGST and SGST automatically at the GST Portal during E-Filing of GSTR-1 of each and every E-Filers."
2. The CPIO, GSTN ('CPIO' herein) had duly replied to the aforesaid RTI query vide letter dated 21.03.2024, informing the RTI Applicant (Appellant/Complainant' herein) qua the background query asserting that the same is policy related issue and not maintained by GSTN being an executing Authority. Further, with respect to the RTI query at Sr. No.1&2 above, the CPIO vide aforesaid letter dated 21.03.2024 replied that the same is not maintained by GSTN. Again, with respect to the RTI query at Sr. CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 4 of 8 No.3 above, the CPIO argues that the same does not constitute 'material information' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Copy of CPIO's letter dated 21.03.2024 is annexed as Annexure-1.
3. Further, after having perused the aforesaid Notice bearing File No. File No. CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 dated 11.03.2026, it transpires that the Appellant /complainant has not filed the First appeal, instead, he preferred the Complaint Application dated 22.04.2024 under Section 18(1) (f) & 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 before the Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi.
4. The Appellant /complainant under Section 18 (1)(f) of RTI Act 2005 has alleged that with respect to the information sought under Sr. No. 1&2 , the CPIO has answered that he is not the appropriate authority to give the information, but the CPIO should have transferred the RTI Application to the proper authority under Section 6(3 of RTI Act within 5 days from the date of receipt of RTI Application. In this regard, it is submitted that the contention of the Appellant/Complainant is misplaced to the extent the reply furnished by CPIO vide letter dated 21.03.2024. It is reiterated that CPIO vide aforesaid letter dated 21.03.2024 has duly responded to the RTI Applicant (Appellant/Complainant herein) within the statutory timeline informing that the requested information is 'not' maintained by GSTN. The Appellant/complainant has misconstrued the response furnished by the CPIO, by reading between the lines, thereby creating an impression that the public authority acted in ignorance, contravening the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to suit his own cause/curiosity, which is not tenable in the present facts and circumstances. However, it is submitted that a generic information qua the RTI query sought under Sr. No.1 & 2 above has already been made available in the public domain and the same can be accessed using the link: https://www.gst.gov.in/download/gststatistics.
5. The Appellant /complainant under Section 18 (1)(e) of RTI Act 2005 has alleged that regarding the information sought under Sr. No.3 above, the CPIO has answered that the same do not constitute 'material information' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and rejected the request for information. The Appellant /complainant further relied upon the Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 contending that CPIO should reject the request for information only by stating the reasons specified in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act 2005, however, the CPIO did not state any reason as specified above under the 'Act'.
In this regard, it is submitted that a bare reading of the information sought under Sr. No.3 above makes is clear that the RTI applicant (appellant/complainant herein) has sought information against query i.e. 'non -existing' and 'hypothetical' in nature, Moreso, the same is also a policy issue It is a trite principle of law that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 5 of 8 authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. Given the aforesaid proposition, the requested information sought under Sr. No.3 above does not falls under the definition of 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore the contention of the Appellant/Complainant qua the response shared by the CPIO (vide letter dated 21.03.2024) fails on this ground 'alone'. In this regard reliance is placed on the Hon'ble CIC's decision dated 11.02.2020 in Second Appeal No. CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/137220 titled A.K. Vasudev Vs. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, wherein it was held inter-alia that "...the PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions". Again, the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI vide decision dated July 8, 2013, had held that "if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession, the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given..."
6. Further, it is submitted that GSTN is a Govt. Enterprise established to develop and implement IT software for GST implementation as per the directions of the Government. Any software change in the GST system (including E-filing etc.) is done with the approval of competent authority. Further, the CPIO is not supposed to furnish response for every query formulated by RTI applicant (Appellant/Complainant herein) that may suit their own cause/curiosity and have no nexus with the wider public interest. The RTI applicant (Appellant/Complainant herein) has also not pleaded any public interest in seeking the aforesaid information vide Application dated 27.02.2024. On this aspect, it is apt to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:
""....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 6 of 8 discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties..."
7. In view of the above-mentioned discussion and relied-upon case laws, the contention of the appellant/complainant does not hold ground. Therefore, the prayer for the appellant/complainant to initiate enquiry under Section 18(2) of RTI Act 2005 is also not tenable.
8. The answering respondent craves liberty to file amended/additional written submission as and when required with the permission of the Hon'ble CIC under the facts and circumstance of the present case."
Decision
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the CPIO had furnished a timely reply to the RTI application. The responses provided indicate that the information sought at points No. 1 and 2 was not maintained by the Respondent Public Authority, and with respect to point No. 3, the query was found to be in the nature of seeking opinion/clarification and did not fall within the ambit of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission further notes that the Complainant has not been able to substantiate any mala fide denial of information or deliberate obstruction on the part of the CPIO in furnishing the information. In a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the scope of inquiry is limited to examining whether there was any mala fide intent or unreasonable denial of information. In the present case, no such mala fide intention or conduct is established against the CPIO.
8. However, the Commission expresses its displeasure over the casual manner in which the written submissions were filed by the Respondent. It is observed that the written submissions placed on record were neither submitted on the official letterhead of the Respondent Public Authority nor duly authenticated, as the name of the CPIO/Concerned Officer was not mentioned. This despite the Commission on previous occasions as well as during hearing, specifically advised the Respondent to ensure proper filing of written submissions in accordance with established procedure.
9. Such lapses reflect lack of due diligence and seriousness in complying with the proceedings before the Commission and are not appreciated. The CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 7 of 8 CPIO is, therefore, cautioned to exercise due care in future and ensure that all submissions made before the Commission are properly authenticated, bear official letterhead, and clearly mention the name and designation of the officers concerned. In view of the above observations, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
10. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the GST Council and GST Counsil Secretariat, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi for his suggestions related to policy matters.
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:
The FAA, Goods and Service Tax Network, 4th Floor, Worldmark 1, East Wing, Asset 11, Hospitality District, Aerocity, New Delhi - 110037 CIC/CBECE/C/2024/113184 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)