Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjivgoyal vs Gnctd on 21 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000681/7529
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000681
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Goel
Khatter Mohalla, VIII Kalayat
Distt Kaithal, Haryana.
Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Public Information Officer & WATO (W-68) Department of Trade and Taxes O/o Value Added tax Officer Vyapar Bhawan IP Estate New Delhi - 110002 RTI application filed on : 17/09/2009 PIO replied : 13/10/2009 First appeal filed on : 17/10/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 04/12/2009 Second Appeal received on : 13/03/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 19/03/2010 Hearing Held on : 21/04/2010 S.No Information sought Reply of PIO
1. To provide the standard format for use by the A registered dealer is supposed to maintain shopkeeper for the sales of good the records of sales of goods in Frm DVAT AT-31 of DVAT Act 200.
In PIO's second response 10/12/2009:
Enclosed copy of format of DVAT-31
2. Information about the attached bills that to Shopkeeper is supposed to issue the tax what extent these bills are wrong or invoice and retail invoice as per the manipulated specifications laid down vide Section 50 of DVAT Act 2004.
In PIO's second response 10/12/2009:
As per provisions of RTI Act, the PIO is not supposed to give his opinion on any matter. Only supposed to provide available information as per record. The appellant can himself examine the bills.
3. Information whether the attached bills are as Said information not available in office. Fact per the records of the Shopkeepers or shall be known as and when the audit of the manipulated ones dealer is conducted
4. Bill No. 3645 in the name of Ankur Retail invoice may be inclusive of VAT as Collection showing date 09/11/2008 is stated in para 2 above Page 1 of 4 printed inclusive of VAT. To what extent is this correct or manipulated?
5. In bills of Lalita Garments, the customer As above name is also not there in any bill, and also the Fact whether these bills are manipulated or prices shown are inclusive of VAT. Are these not maybe known only after audit of the bills wrong or manipulated? concerned dealer
6. Sunil Kumar Still and Studio Vedio Bill not Said firm not registered in Ward - 68 in standard format. Bill No. 61 dt 17/11/2006 and no. 62 dt 18/11/2006 - whether only one customer came in two days ? As the bill is also not on printed booklet and does not carry the stamp. To state whether the bill is manipulated or wrong
7. In case of Mehak medicos Bill No. 6146 As above dated 19/04/2007 and bill No. 5341 dated 20/07/07 , the prior serial no bill is showing issued on a later date. The bill is also showing TAX paid on it, While TAX PAID bills were discounted before 2007.Are tehse bills manipulated out of old lying stationary. To state whether the bill is manipulated or wrong
8. In case of Virgo Bill no 575 dated As above 20/02/2008 and bill no 581 dated 2/04/2008
- whether only 6 customers came in the shop in one and half months?
In case of bill no. 510 dated 08/01/2007 and bill no 525 dated 15/11/2007 - whether only 15 customers came in 10 moths? Bill No. 510 and 575 is showing gap of 1 month, in this one month about 50 customers came in the shop. In the bills of no tax has been shown while the RV Garments Taz has been shown, To state whether the bill is manipulated or wrong
9. In case of RV Garments bill No 6689 dated Fact shall be known as and when the audit of 26/10/2008 and bill no. 6693 dated 28/10/08 the dealer is conducted
- whether in 3 days months only 4 customers came in the shop?
10. As Homeo Drug Book No is written Said firm not registered in Ward - 68 annually, it is difficult to know how many bills are there in one book. In case of bill nos. 1560 dated 26/11/2006, bill no. 1738 dated 07/02/2007, bill no 1933 dated 03/05/2007 are not carrying name of customers - are these bills manipulated or correct? Book nos are also not showing series properly
11. Friends Computer Bill is not on in standard As above format and it appears that it has been taken out of the computer, thus whether it is correct Page 2 of 4 to issue bill of Rs. 27475 without TIN No. and Tax on it. As the receiver of goods has also not signed on the bill, whether the goods has been received by the buyer or only bill has been received. To state whether the bills are manipulated or wrong?
12. The Friends Computer Inc Bill does no have As above service tax. Whether it I standard format - whether the bill is wrong or right?
13. The bill of Satnam Stationary is showing As above serial no. 14 on bill dated 01/02/2008 and bill No. 11 dated 3/3/2008 - the prior serial no. bill is issued under the stamp rather that the printed bills. To state whether the bill is manipulated or wrong
14. Bill No. 731 of Sethi School is without As above customer name and date. Is it illegal or manipulation?
15. As above Bills of Pramod Kr. Singhaldoes not have . name of customer.
In case of Bill nos 1608 date 1/09/08, bill no. 1646 date 31/10/08 - means only 36 customers came in the shop in 2 months Bill No 1664 issued on 17/11/08 - means 18 customers came in 17 days.
Bill no. 1680 dt. 5/12/08 - showing only 15 customers came in one and a half months. Are all the aforementioned bills manipulated?
16. Is it essential to mention name of buyer in the As per section 86 (16) of DVAT Act, 2004 bills or can the bills be blank even? What where a person:
action can be taken if bills are blank or a) has issues a tax invoice or retail manipulated or wrong under what law? invoice with incomplete or incorrect particulars
b) having issued a tax invoice or retail invoice, has failed to account it correctly in his book of account The person shall be liable to pay by way of penalty, an amount of five thousand or twenty % of taxes deficiency whichever is greater Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the FAA:
PIO directed to reply afresh as per the questions asked for by the appellant within a maximum period of 3 weeks.Page 3 of 4
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Public Information Officer & WATO (W-68);
Most of the queries of the Appellant seek interpretation of rules and laws. Some of the queries could be answered only if department carry out an investigation. The PIO has provided information that is available on the records.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information available on records has been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21 April 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (DR) Page 4 of 4