Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Saravanan N vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 20 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/2024/618717

Saravanan N                                           .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
Central Board of Excise and
Customs, GST Policy Wing,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001                       .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    19.02.2026
Date of Decision                    :    20.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    05.03.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    18.03.2024
First appeal filed on               :    25.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    08.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    21.04.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

"I Saravanan N, advocate, practicing in Madras High Court, According to RTI Act, 2005, I need some information regarding as follows, CIC/CBECE/A/2024/618717 Page 1 of 6

1. I am paying GST while purchasing items at petrol bunks, stores, showrooms, institutions, restaurants, or any other place, individuals or groups. Is there a way to confirm whether the GST paid to these entities is indeed remitted to the government? If not, why is this the case?

2. Is there a mechanism available for individuals to directly remit GST to the government when purchasing products or services? If not, what is the reason behind this?

3. In the context of online gaming, individuals pay GST on both deposits and withdrawals. Will the GST amount paid during these transactions be accounted for in their income tax returns?

4. I have PAN card, then why can't I use this card to pay GST directly to government."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.03.2024 stating as under:

"All the said questions are in nature of inferences/situational queries/interpretations/data etc. and only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority.

All the GST related compliances, process and procedure are prescribed in provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 and the Rules/Notifications/Circulars/Instructions/Orders issued thereunder, which are freely available on public domain and same can be accessed through following links:-

1) www.gst.gov.in

2) www.gstcouncil.gov.in

3) www.cbic.gov.in

4) www.gstn.gov.in

5) https://taxinformation.cbic.gov.in Further, I rely on the decision of Sh. K. Lall. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 wherein the CIC had held that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to CIC/CBECE/A/2024/618717 Page 2 of 6 the citizens either freely that information cannot be said to be held or under the control of the public authority and thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.

Further, the information sought is in nature of drawing of inferences/opinion/consultancy and/or making of assumptions and as decided by the CIC in F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00940 on 15th October, 2007 in the case of L.K. Verma that information-seeker cannot demand from a public authority its opinion and seek its advice in a matter of their interest. Anything which is intangible such as interpretations opinions advice explanations reasons cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, I rely on the decision made by the Central Information Commission in Decision No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/186064 dated 28.12.2017 in the case of Avinash Agarwal vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, which reiterates as under:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information: or to furnish replies to situational queries: or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO can only provide information available with him or held by him. Therefore, the information sought cannot be said to include in the definition of information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is accessible under Right to information as defined in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Kind reference is invited to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in Civil Appeal No. 6454 Of 2011 arising out of SLP (C) No.7526/2009 in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. 35. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of information and right to information under clauses(f) and

(j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to CIC/CBECE/A/2024/618717 Page 3 of 6 an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 08.04.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

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.

Respondent: Dr. Nitin Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/CPIO, appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 21.04.2024 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. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order. He further submitted that information sought did not fall within definition of information as defined under section 2

(f) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the queries raised by the Appellant are largely in the nature of seeking clarifications, opinions, explanations and hypothetical scenarios regarding the mechanism of GST collection, remittance and its linkage with income tax. In this regard, the Commission notes that as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information can be provided which is available on record and held by or under the control of the Public Authority. The CPIO is not obliged to create information, draw inferences, or provide advice/interpretation to the applicant. The reply furnished by the CPIO appropriately reflects this legal position and is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and various decisions of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies given by the Respondent Public Authorities.

8. However, the Commission also observes that the issues raised by the Appellant pertain to broader concerns of public awareness and transparency in GST compliance mechanisms, particularly regarding, verification of GST remittance by vendors after collecting the same (indirect tax) from the customers on behalf of Government, feasibility of payment of GST by consumers directly to the Government, and clarity on treatment of GST in certain transactions. While these do not strictly fall within the ambit of "information" under the RTI Act, the concerns reflect a need for enhanced public facilitation and awareness.

Advisory

9. In view of the above, the Commission, in exercise of its powers under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, issues an advisory to the Competent Authority in the Central Board of Excise and Customs (GST Policy Wing) to examine the feasibility of developing appropriate mechanisms, guidelines or public advisories to address such concerns of taxpayers/consumers, including transparency tools or awareness measures regarding GST compliance and remittance, and to take necessary steps as deemed appropriate in the larger public interest. This advisory is being issued keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act to promote transparency and informed citizen participation.

10. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.

The appeal is disposed of 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, Central Board of Excise and Customs, GST Policy Wing, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/618717 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)