Central Information Commission
Mrhemanta Kumar Behera vs Gnctd on 23 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2016/000954
Hemanta Kumar Behera v. Dept of Trade & Taxes
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI application: 10122015 FAA Order: 1632016 2nd Appeal: 142016
Disposed of. Hearing: 20062016 Decided on: 23062016
Appellant: Absent.
Public Authority: Mr. Anil Kumar, AVATO, Mr. Maya Devi, AVATO, Mr. Gopal Bansal, Third
party.
FACTS:
2. Appellant through his RTI application had sought information relating to copy of annual return filed by M/s P.K. Himat Singhka and ors, Uday Park against its Central and local sales for 201215. CPIO forwarded RTI to accounts officer, Deptt. of Trade and Taxes. Assistant Commissioner (ward88) denied information U/s 98 of DVAT Act as confidential. FAA dismissed the appeal. Appellant thereafter approached the Commission. DECISION:
3. Mr. Gopal Bansal, Manager of M/s PK Himatsingka & Co told the Commission that the appellant is a former employee who resigned voluntarily. The AVATO stated that as per section 98 (1) of the DVAT Act the required information cannot be furnished to the Appellant as it is confidential. Commission noted that the PIO without any application of mind has refused to Page 1 give the information claiming that the VAT action does not permit to give the information. Relevance can be put to section 98 of DVAT Act which itself carves out an exception when such information though confidential is rendered disclosable in larger public interest u/s 98(3)
(j). Moreso, under section 22 of RTI Act, the provisions of RTI Act shall have over riding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law for the time being in force.
98. Returns, etc. to be confidential. (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act, other than proceedings before a criminal court, shall, save as provided in subsection (3) of this section, be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no court shall, save as aforesaid, be entitled to require any servant of the Government to produce before it any such statement, return, account, document or record or any part thereof, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof.
.......
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the disclosure ... (j) of any information relating to a class of dealers or class of transactions, if, in the opinion of the Commissioner it is desirable in the public interest to publish such information. It is pertinent to note that as Form 16 , a documents associated with Tax Returns Documents also contains personal details of assesse i.e. Full Name, PAN etc. apart from other details, so they should be suitably blocked before disclosure.
4. The Commission directs the respondent authority to furnish Form 16 of the said company after removing personal details and the information related to commercial aspects, etc. Disposed of.
Page 2 (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, , RTI Cell, Govt of Delhi Department of Trade and Taxes, Vyapar Bhavan IP Estate, New Delhi110002
2. Shri Hemanta Kumar Behera B382, Dakshinpuri, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar Delhi110062 Page 3 Page 4