Central Information Commission
Vijender Kumar vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 7 April, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CBECE/A/2019/647079
Mr. Vijender Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Central Board of Excise and
Customs-Central Excise, New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 07-02-2019 FA : 27-02-2019 SA : 06-08-2019
CPIO : 18-02-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 05-04-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Board of Excise and Customs-Central Excise, New Delhi seeking following information:-
1. "Is it compulsory to take temporary GST registration when participating in retails exhibition organized by third party?
2. Can exhibition organizer/venue manager allow sales without GST registration of the participants?
3. Who will be held responsible for selling goods without temporary GST registration in the retail exhibition, organizer or participant?
4. What are the penalties or punishment for offenders at point no. 3?
5. Dilli Haat, INA in Delhi is one such venue where more than 300 participants run temporary 15 days sales every month. How many temporary registrations have been issued to the participants in Dilli Haat, INA since the beginning of GST Act, 2017?"
2. The CPIO responded on 18-02-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-02-2019 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Page 1 of 4 Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Vijender Kumar attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Aman Singla, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio/video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the sought for information should be provided to him.
5. The respondent contended that the appellant is seeking clarification/legal opinion from the CPIO regarding GST registration and hence, such queries are not covered u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the appellant herein attempts to elicit answers to his situational queries with regard to the legal provisions for GST registration. This requires interpretation and analyses of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and various other documents/rules. Therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications/legal opinion. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 2 of 4
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or '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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
Page 3 of 47. In light of the factual matrix of the instant appeal and the aforesaid case- laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide any clarification/legal opinion to the queries which are interrogatory in nature. However, the CPIO is obliged to provide a specific weblink to the appellant thereby indicating the available rules, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date : 05-04-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Central Board of Excise and Customs
Central Excise, Room No. 244-D
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Mr. Vijender Kumar
Page 4 of 4