Central Information Commission
Mr. Amarjeet Singh vs Department Of Trade And Taxes on 13 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMWASSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001372/4106
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001372
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Amarjeet Singh
Editor - Auto Ujala
2820/29, Guru Nanak Auto Market
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra
Dy. Commissioner (Enforcement)/PIO
Department of Trade and Taxes
(Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)
Enforcement Branch,
Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 07/11/2008
PIO replied : 24/11/2008
First appeal filed on : 08/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2009
Second Appeal received on : 18/02/2009
Information sought:
1) Whether the raid by the VAT Enforcement wing was entered in the records of the Department whereby the raids have been conducted/initiated to unearth the evasion of the Taxes payable to the exchequer which was received by the Shopkeepers/Motor parts dealers in the jurisdiction of ward no. XVII in the following Motor Parts Markets at Kashmere Gate and other adjoining streets, Delhi-6
a) Sehgal Jain Motor Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-6
b) Motor Market, Ram Lal Chandok Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi6,
c) National Chamber, Minerva Cinema Hall, Kashmere Gate, Delhi6,
d) Guru Nanak Auto Market, Bara Bazar, Lothian Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi6, Before the occasion of Diwali.
2) Whether any incriminating evidence or recovery of the documents reflecting the evasive of VAT (Taxes) payable to the exchequer?
3) Whether any case was made out as envisaged in the in the Indian Penal Code?
4) Whether the case made out was a punishable offence?
5) Whether any fake document was recovered to reflect the evasion of taxes payable to the exchequer?
6) Whether the books of accounts are properly maintained by the shopkeepers/motors parts dealers where the raid was conducted?
7) Whether any document regarding the balance sheet was taken into possession by the raiding party of the Enforcement cell and further any stock was found to be in excess while tallying with the balance sheet?
8) Whether the investigation was completed or still pending?
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO replied that the information sought was exempted under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Ground of First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA ordered, "By looking at the facts of the case I am of the opinion that PIO may clearly inform the Appellant, whether any action was taken on his complaint or not. The other information sought by the appellant may be provided as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005 and DVAT Act, 2004."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of FAA by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Pal on behalf of Mr. Amarjeet Singh Respondent : Mr. C.V. Murugan APIO on behalf of PIO Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra The PIO has refused to give the information claiming the exemption under Section 8(1)(h). The PIO was asked to justify how disclosing the information sought by the appellant would impede the process of investigation. The PIO admits that there can be no ways of justifying how giving the information would impede the process of investigation. The PIO is warned to insure that he does not claim exemptions without explaining reasons how the exceptions applying a particular matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 22 July 2009.
This decision was 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 13 July 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (GJ)