Appellant had a criminal case registered against him under 498A of IPC & sought the details of the purchase of jewellery by his inlaws - Respondent: the details are not available with them - CIC: the available information has been provided
1. The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Krishna Sharma and Mr. Virender.
2. The Appellant through his RTI application dt 12.3.2014 sought information with respect to jewelry bills submitted by the applicant’s wife namely, whether such bills are valid, whether any purchase done against these bill, if yes, VAT paid, whether jeweler is registered etc.
3. CPIO on 13.3.2014 gave parawise reply. Being unsatisfied with the information furnished, the appellant had filed First Appeal.
4. FAA vide order dt 28.4.2014 upheld the information provided by the PIO. Aggrieved with the FAA order, the appellant made second appeal before the Commission.
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant is having a criminal case registered against him under 498A of Indian Peanal Code, 1870 and hence he is trying to seek the details of the purchase of jewellery by his inlaws. The respondent authority submitted that the details sought by the appellant are not available with them and moreover, the said jewellery shop is not registered under the VAT payment when the alleged purchase of the jewellery was done by the appellant’s inlaws. Subsequently, the shop got registered in 2009 and the details given by the shop dealer are only consolidated statements of VAT payment to the Government and the individual details, etc are not given by the shopkeepers, as the duty of the Respondent authority is to check the over all sales and the payment of VAT due by them.
4. Having heard these submissions and having perused the file thoroughly, the Commission considers that the appellant has been given the information that is available with the respondent authority and it is for the appellant to use the same for his criminal case. The appeal is therefore closed.
Citation: Dr. Nitin Shakya v. Trade and Taxes Department in File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/900793