Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mohammed Rafi Pv vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 6 March, 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/2024/115205

Mohammed Rafi PV                                      .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
Office of the Asst.
Commissioner of Central
Tax, Division-3, Bangalore
North-West Commissionerate,
2nd Floor, BMTC Bus Stand Complex,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 560051                      .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    03.02.2026
Date of Decision                    :    05.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    30.10.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    Not on record
First appeal filed on               :    11.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    12.01.2024
Compliance of FAA order             :    02.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    23.11.2024
Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

"REGARDING GST No-********71J1ZX.

(please refer Annexure-1 attachment -Below)

1. Please provide certified copies of All documents provided by Applicant of the above GST Number for GST registration like Address proof, PAN, Bank account number etc.:

2. Please provide Inspection approval report given by Approving Authority/official/Inspector.

3. Please provide complete statement of returns-only tax paid details Filing details for GSTR3B and GSTR-1/IFF of GST number: *********71J1Z for every month from January 2022-2023"

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.01.2024, held as under:

"3.1. I have gone through the details and perused the following documents i. RTI application dated 30.10.2023, filed by Shri. Mohamed Rafi P.V. ii. RTI appeal dated 26.12.2023 filed by Shri. Mohamed Rafi P.V. iii. Submissions made before me by Shri. Mohamed Rafi P.V during Personal Hearing held on 11.01.2024.

3.2. I have considered the appeal filed by the appellant. I find from the records available before me that the appellant, in his RTI application dated 30.10.2023, had requested for information in the form of certified copies of all documents provided by the applicant of the GST Number 29BFPPB5771J1ZX for GST registration like Address proof, PAN, Bank account number etc, complete statement of tax paid details, filing details for GSTR 3B and GSTR 1/IFF for every month from January 2022-2023. Further, the appellant had requested for inspection approval report given by Approving Authority/official/Inspector.

3.3. From records available before me, it is clear that the RTI application dated 30.10.2023 was received in this office on 01.11.2023, as evident from the screenshot of INDIAPOST website submitted by the appellant. I find that, the CPIO, NWD-3 had failed to reply to the RTI application dated 30.10.2023 within the stipulated time as required under RTI Act, 2005.

3.4. As per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9.

3.5. Further, as per Section 7(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request 3.6. From the above, it is clear that on receipt of RTI application on 01.11.2023 in NWD-3, the CPIO of NWD-3 was required to examine the RTI application and reply to the RTI application within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application. If the information sought was not available with the CPIO, he should have transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to the application public authority/ CPIO who held the information. However, on receipt of the RTI application, the CPIO has failed to follow the proper procedure in accordance with Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. As the CPIO has failed to give decision on the request for information within thirty days of receipt of the RTI application, the CPIO is deemed to have refused the request in terms of Section 7(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal on 26.12.2023.

3.7. In the instant case, the CPIO had failed to furnish the information sought by Shri.Mohamed Rafi PV within thirty days of receipt of the RTI application. In view of my discussion in para 3.6 above, 1 find that the CPIO, NWD-3 is required to reply to the RTI application dated 30.10.2023 filed by Shri.Mohamed Rafi PV, at the earliest.

I direct the CPIO to reply to RTI application dated 30.10.2023, filed by Shri. Mohamed Rafi P.V, within 30 days of receipt of this order.

I dispose the appeal accordingly."

3. In compliance of FAA order, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.02.2024 stating as under:

"The reply of the division is as follows The provisions of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 are as follows Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Since the information requested is in respect of a proprietary concern, not connected remotely to the RTI applicant, and also appears to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual, I take the decision that the information requested cannot be disclosed relying on the provisions made under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is satisfied that there is no larger public interest that justifies the disclosure of the sought information."

4. 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: Absent despite notice.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 23.11.2024 is available on record.

6. Both the parties remained absent despite notice.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that neither the Appellant nor the CIC/CBECE/A/2024/115205 Page 4 of 6 Respondent appeared to contest or substantiate their respective stands in the matter. The Commission further notes that the CPIO had furnished a reply in compliance with the order of the FAA invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, stating that the information sought pertains to personal information of a third-party and that no larger public interest warranting disclosure was established.

8. In the absence of any rebuttal from the Appellant to challenge the applicability of the exemption claimed by the Respondent, and considering that the information sought relates to third-party personal and financial records connected with GST registration and returns, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the reply furnished by the Respondent. The disclosure of such information, in the given facts, would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

9. The Commission also takes note that both parties remained absent despite notice, which reflects lack of due diligence in pursuing and defending the matter respectively. However, the non-appearance of the Respondent CPIO is viewed adversely. The CPIO, being a statutory authority under the RTI Act, is expected to remain present before the Commission to assist in adjudication of the matter.

10. Accordingly, while finding no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent and in view of the absence of the Appellant to press the appeal, the Commission does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.

11. Nevertheless, the Commission cautions the concerned CPIO to remain present in future hearings before the Commission and to discharge his statutory responsibilities diligently, failing which appropriate action under the provisions of the RTI Act may be contemplated.

The appeal 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 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/115205 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:

The FAA, Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Division-3, Bangalore North-West Commissionerate, 2nd Floor, BMTC Bus Stand Complex, Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 560051 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/115205 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)