Central Information Commission
Mr.Gurpreet Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 February, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000447
Date of Hearing : February 29, 2012
Date of Decision : February 29, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Gurpreet Singh
S/o Shri S. Gyan Singh
R.o WZ 10C, Phase III
Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi 110 059
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Department of Trade & Taxes
Government of NCT of Delhi
I P Estate Vypar Bhavan
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri Naresh Pal, VATO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000447
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 13.09.2011) with the PIO, Department of Trade & Taxes, New Delhi, seeking certain information (i.e. whether the firm has paid the sales tax/VAT; whether the firm is registered with the public authority) in respect of M/s Nutan Embroiders Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He also gave a list of bills, along with details, and enquired whether the said bills are authentic or not. The PIO on 17.10.2011 informed the Applicant that the said firm is not registered with them since the total turnover of the firm is less. He also informed that invoice at sl. Nos. 1 to 9 have been verified. As for remaining information, the PIO stated that the same does not fall under the jurisdiction of Ward45. The Applicant, being aggrieved with this reply, filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority on 01.11.2011. Subsequently, the Appellant also filed the present appeal before the Commission on 28.11.2011 complaining that the PIO has given incomplete information to him. Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that he has received the information about 9 bills figuring in the list of 10 bills provided by him in his RTIapplication, but information in respect of 10th bill has not been given to him. The Respondents stated that the 10th bill has not been verified. The Appellant also complained that his first appeal was returned undelivered with a remark that the addressee is not there, while he had sent the said appeal to the person, whose name the PIO had indicated in his reply. The Respondents stated that the Appellate Authority, whose name the PIO had given in his reply, was transferred when the Appellant had made his first appeal and hence the office probably did not accept it and therefore had returned the same to the Appellant. They, however, informed the Commission that on receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission along with a copy of the Appellant's present appeal (with enclosures which included the Appellant's fist appeal), the Appellate Authority has decided the Appellant's first appeal holding that the PIO has given the reply. He also made it clear that department does not keep the bill wise details of dealers.
3. From the above, it is noted that the Respondents have provided to the Appellant the information which was available in their records. Further, there was no deliberate attempt on part of the office of the public authority to refuse to accept the Appellant's first appeal. As such, no action is warranted in this regard. However, in the interest of the Appellant, it is recommended that the public authority consider verifying the bill, figuring at Sl No. 10 of the list the Appellant has provided, and supply the information to the Appellant preferably by 30.03.2012.
4. Appeal is disposed off with the above recommendation.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Gurpreet Singh S/o Shri S. Gyan Singh R.o WZ 10C, Phase III Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar New Delhi 110 059
2. The Appellate Authority (RTI) Department of Trade & Taxes Government of NCT of Delhi I P Estate Vypar Bhavan New Delhi
3. Public Information Officer (RTI) & Value Added Tax Officer, Ward No. 45 Department of Trade & Taxes Government of NCT of Delhi I P Estate Vypar Bhavan New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.