Central Information Commission
Vishal Dhakate vs Department Of Revenue on 9 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/DOREV/A/2024/632756
Vishal Dhakate .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Assistant Commissioner,
Office of the Chief
Commissioner, CGST & Central
Excise, Nagpur I, GST Bhavan,
Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines,
Nagpur - 440001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2026
Date of Decision : 06.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 11.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 29.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. I am Vishal Dhakate. I am husband of Nidhi Paunikar, Nagpur since we have married in 28-02-2023. Nidhi Paunikar's mobile No. is ********079. Her father is Shri Punaji Paunikar, Nagpur's mobile No. is ********12.CIC/DOREV/A/2024/632756 Page 1 of 6
2. Home address of my wife Nidhi Paunikar is House No.**-, *****, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Manewada, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur (M.S.). Her PAN Number is *******583P.
3. She has given me a legal Notice dated 01.08.2023 through her Advocate. A copy of the aforesaid Notice is enclosed herewith.
(A-1) In the aforesaid Notice, she has mentioned in para No. 3 of the Notice that her parents have made expenditure of Rs. 5 lakhs on 22.01.2023 for betrothal at Halba Samaj Mahasangh, Dindaya Nagar, Nagpur (M.S.). Further she mentioned that Rs.5000/- personally expend for dinner in luxurious hotel in Nagpur for us. If they made the above expenditure, then GST must have paid by them, and the aforesaid Hotel would have deposited the GST to your department under the extant rules.
(A-2) In connection with above, please provide information of Amount of tax paid & copy of the tax paid invoice/ Voucher / documents regarding GST paid by them on the above-mentioned expenditure; Rate of Tax paid.
(B-1) In the 4th para of the Notice, she has mentioned that she arranged the marriage ceremony luxuriously by expending more than Rs. 20 lakhs in Hotel Elite Homes, Besa Road, Nagpur (Mobile No. *******644) for two days. If they made the above expenditure, then GST must have paid by them, and the aforesaid Hotel would have deposited the GST to your department.
(B-2) In connection with above, please provide information of Amount of tax paid & copy of the tax paid invoice/ Voucher / documents regarding GST paid by them on the above-mentioned expenditure; Rate of Tax paid.
(C-1) In the 6th para, she has mentioned that Gift for total Rs.3,50,000/- was got to her from her relatives on the day of Marriage 28.02.2023.
(C-2) In connection with above, please provide information if she has mentioned the aforesaid Gift amount in her Income Tax Return F.Y. 2022-
23. Provide list of Names of the relatives who have paid such huge Gifts.CIC/DOREV/A/2024/632756 Page 2 of 6
(D-1) In the 8th para of the aforesaid Notice, she has mentioned that about Rs.30 lakhs expended on betrothal on 22.01.23 and marriage on 28.02.23. Betrothal done at Halba Samaj Mahasangh, Dindaya Nagar, Nagpur on 22.01.23. Marriage done at Dange Celebration, Pipla Fata, Near Hudkeshwar Outer Ring Road, Nagpur (M.S.) on 28.02.23.
(D-2) (i) In connection with above, please provide information if they have paid income tax on the aforesaid income Rs.30 lakhs.
(ii) Whether it was tax paid income.
(iii) (a) Whether the aforesaid money was withdrawn from their Bank Accounts. (b) Which was source & period of their income & Expenditure of aforesaid Rs.30 lakhs. (c) Whether the source of income & Expenditure is legal or illegal as per the existing rules.
(iv) Amount of tax paid by them on the aforesaid expenditure by Nidhi or her parents/brother.
(v) Provide copy of the Cash Receipt, GST paid voucher/invoice of Dange Celebration, Pipla Fata, Near Hudkeshwar Outer Ring Road, Nagpur regarding marriage done on 28.02.23.
(vi) Provide copy of the Cash Receipt, GST paid voucher/invoice of Halba Samaj Mahasangh, Dindaya Nagar, Nagpur on 22.01.23."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.03.2024 stating as under:
"Please application bearing Registration No. refer to your RTI CCENP/R/E/24/00009 dated: 12.02.2024.
In this context, it is to inform you that the information sought you under RTI Act, 2005 in respect of CGST & Central Excise, Hqrs., Nagpur-I Commissionerate, Nagpur are as under:
with The Information sought by you is not available to Nagpur-I Commissionerate."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 02.05.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOREV/A/2024/632756 Page 3 of 64. 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 30.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
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, notes that the Appellant sought various information relating to alleged expenditure incurred by certain private individuals on marriage and betrothal functions, including copies of GST paid invoices, vouchers, details of tax paid, source of income and related documents.
8. The Commission notes that both the Appellant and the Respondent remained absent during the hearing despite due notice. The records, however, reveal that the CPIO had summarily denied the information by stating that the information was not available with the Commissionerate, without examining whether the requested information pertained to any other Public Authority or whether assistance from any other officer/section was required for proper disposal of the RTI application.
9. Upon perusal of the records, the Commission observes that the Respondent Authority neither invoked the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for transferring the application to the concerned public authority, if the information was held elsewhere, nor sought assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned officers who could reasonably be expected to hold the relevant records. The reply furnished by the CPIO is thus found to be evasive, incomplete and misleading, as it does not reflect due diligence in CIC/DOREV/A/2024/632756 Page 4 of 6 tracing the information or in facilitating access to the same as mandated under the RTI Act.
10. The RTI Act casts a statutory obligation upon the CPIO to either provide the available information or to transfer the application to the appropriate public authority under Section 6(3), or to seek necessary assistance from other officers under Section 5(4) for the purpose of furnishing the information. A mere bald assertion that the information is not available, without exploring these statutory mechanisms, defeats the very spirit of the Act and amounts to improper disposal of the RTI application.
11. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent CPIO to re- examine the RTI application in the light of the provisions of the RTI Act and provide a revised, point-wise reply to the Appellant strictly in accordance with law. If the information pertains to or is held by any other Public Authority or section, appropriate action under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act shall be taken. Further, wherever necessary, the CPIO may invoke the provisions of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to seek assistance from the concerned officers for tracing and collating the relevant records. The revised reply shall be furnished to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The Commission further takes serious note of the non-appearance of the CPIO during the hearing despite due notice. Such absence reflects lack of diligence in discharge of statutory responsibilities under the RTI Act and causes avoidable delay in adjudication of appeals. The CPIO is, therefore, cautioned to remain present in future hearings or ensure proper representation, failing which the Commission may be constrained to take an adverse view in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
13. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 CIC/DOREV/A/2024/632756 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Jt. Commissioner, Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur I, GST Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 CIC/DOREV/A/2024/632756 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)