Central Information Commission
Varun Bajaj vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 3 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBECE/A/2022/121434
Varun Bajaj अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O'O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
DIVISION-MOGA, RTI CELL, 247.
GANDHI ROAD- MOGA.
PUNJAB- 142001. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/03/2023
Date of Decision : 01/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 22/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 03/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"Please provide me the information about the following enclosed documents verifying the same from Manchanda Jewellers, Main Bazar, Moga as written 1 confirmation in token of its proof under Right To Information Act, 2005 Section 8(1)(j)/Section-22:-
1. Bill No. 5 dated 05/04/2018 for Rs. 1000 issued by Manchanda Jewellers, Main Bazar, Moga.
2. Bill No. 8 dated 05/04/2018 for Rs. 1050 issued by Manchanda Jewellers, Main Bazar, Moga.
3. Bill No. 12 dated 06/04/2018 for Rs. 1917 Issued by Manchanda Jewellers, Main Bazar, Moga.
Also, please find enclosed Statement U/S 161 U.P.C. of Pankaj Manchanda S/0 Ashok Manchanda C/0 Manchanda Jewellers, Main Bazar, Moga.
1. Please inform me whether the above claimed bills were actually issued by Manchanda Jewellers, Main Bazar, Moga.
2. Please inform me whether these are valid bills and applicable taxes actually paid on the same.
3. If not, please inform me what is the authenticity of the said bills.
4. Please inform me whether the said Jeweller is actually registered with department of trade and taxes.
5. If yes, please inform me the correct and authentic name, address and number of this Jewellers GST registration.
6. Please inform me that whether these are true bills or simply issued spurious/bogus bills and have not paid the GST on the same.
7. Please provide the certified copies of Information collected from the Jeweller for the same.
8. Please provide me the CO containing scanned copies of bill books/cash memos for the 1st Quarter of the financial year 2018-2019 issued by the said Jeweller.
9. Please provide me the information as to whether the said Jeweller had paid the applicable taxes on his sates during financial year 2018-2019.
10. Please provide me the CD containing details of the return filed by the said Jeweller for the 1" Quarter of the financial year 2018-2019.
11. Please provide me the names and complete address of the persons who got this Job Work done (Bill No. 5 dated 05/04/2018, Bill No. 8 dated 05/04/2018 and Bill No. 12 dated 06/04/2018) from the said Jeweller.
12. Please provide me the copies of Form 30 & Form 31 of the said Jeweller during financial year 2018-2019.
I state that these documents are submitted in the FIR No. 114 dated 21/06/2020 U/S 498 A, 406, 506 & 354 A IPC at Police Station, City Moga as proofs of Jewellery 2 and these bills were made part of the charge sheet submitted by the Police in the Court. Hence this Information is of Public Interest."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 22.12.2021 stating as under:
"In this regard, It is intimated that the Information sought is of third party. Therefore, the information sought for is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, this Information sought in your RTI application dated 29.10.2021 is rejected under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 03.02.2022 held as under:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant argued on the lines of the grounds of the second appeal mentioned above and urged that with respect to a case of Section 498A of the IPC registered against him and his family, he came to know of these averred bills and therefore seeks to verify the same as he apprehends these are not genuine bills.
The Rep. of the CPIO reiterated the denial of the information as being related to a third party and emphasised on the contents of the FAA's order clarifying that the bills referred to be by the Appellant did not fall under the jurisdiction of CGST, Moga Division or CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana.
The Commission took on record the submissions sent by the CPIO prior to the hearing wherein the following additional comments have been tendered with respect to the grounds of appeal:
"3.3.1 Further, in the present tax regime, faith has been made upon the taxpayer and he is liable to self-assess the tax payable and pay the same to the Government ex-chequer as per the procedure laid down under prevalent tax laws and procedures. The assessee never furnishes and records maintained by him and invoices/bills/challans issued by him in the course of his business unless and until asked for and submitted by the taxpayer during any audit or investigation initiated by the Department.
3.3.2 In the present case, prima facie, the dealer namely, M/s Manchanda Jewellers does not appear to be a tax payer as no GSTIN is mentioned on the copies of bills supplied by the applicant. Further, the address of the said firms is also not obvious from the said bills, as on the bills, it is mentioned as Sultanpur Lodhi and as per applicant's version it is Main Bazar, Moga. Further from the statement of Pankaj Manchanda given under CrPC before the Police authorities, 4 as supplied by the applicant correct address of the business premises of the said dealer is not ascertainable. From the above facts, it is apparent that the said M/s Manchanda Jewellers is not a registered taxpayer and as such he is not supposed to furnish any information or records to the tax department. In other words, the department does not hold or is in control of any information about the firm.
xxx
5. Further, the appellant appears to be more concerned about evasion of tax by the said firm rather than getting information under RTI Act, 2005 and for that purpose the appellant feels that the RTI officer at Moga should have found if Manchanda Jeweller is having any existence in Moga or not and that he would have contacted the police officer to know from whom he has taken the enclosed statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. at Main Bazar, Moga. As discussed above the CPIO is required to supply the 'material' in the form as held by the 'public authority' and is not required to do inquiry/investigation on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him. The observation of the appellant does not pertain to functionality of the CPIO, rather it related to anti- evasion wing of the appropriate GST department and not the CPIO, who can function only within the legal frame work of RTI Act."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised speculative queries requiring the CPIO to deduce and tender clarifications/verify statements, none of which concerns the mandate of the RTI Act. Yet, the FAA has supplemented the reply of the CPIO by providing a cogent insight into the factual position of the jurisdictional anomaly evinced from the copy of the averred bills. Moreover, the CPIO has also succinctly put forth his objections against the grounds of second appeal in the written submissions filed prior to the hearing which are in line with the observations of the Commission in the instant matter. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:5
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 6 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information sought for concerns a third party. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as 7 personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
However, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of his written submissions sent to the Commission prior to the hearing to the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8