Tax details and GST returns were denied claiming it is confidential Third Party information - CIC: Appellant has stretched her apprehensions and is merely expressing conjecture against the tax liability of the averred entities; No larger public interest
20 Nov, 2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2022 seeking the following information:
“1. GSTIN Tax of United engineers & consultant & Technics unlimited GSTIN no.:27AACHN5397P1ZC of Mr. Sandeep Mhatre & Prakash Kadan, Ramesh Singh.
Their mobile nos. are as follows:
Mr. Sandeep Mhatre – 9930686449
Mr. Prakash Kadam – 9029203825
Mr. Ramesh Singh – 9518973011.
1. GSTIN Tax of TK Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. GSTIN no. 27AABCT6921F1ZE of last 5 years. Earlier name Thyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd. SAP no: 8038133873 contract no: 2500398393, Customer name 3010133324
2. Gold Maintenance Contract: HSN/SAC : 998718, 7-97-57383, 7-97-57384, 7-97-57385, 7-97-57386, 7-97- 57387, 7-97-57388 bill dated 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022.
3. Chamunda Enterprises – Housekeeping – 9773843378, 961972006. Azad Bidg, 1st floor, Room no. 103, Ratanbai Camp Thane.
4. Arjun Security Services – Mob. Number-9769329696, 8879033909. Shop no. 103, 1st floor Marathon monte vista, Mulund(W) Mumbai-80
5. Sanatan Jena - Mulund (W)-400080
6. Balaji Medical & Gen. Stores – 9930098530 Mulund (W) Mumbai-80
7. D.R. Stationers – Mulund (W), Mumbai-80 (Dhaval Heria)
8. Mevalal repairs & Maintenance Shop no.1 Ground floor, opp.Stylo Tailors, Sonapur-400078
9. Vrinda Enterprises.
10. Unnikrishnan- 9892559292 – Mulund(W), Mumbai-80
11. Rajani Bridal – PK Road – Mulund(W) Mumbai-80
12. Dr. Ravi Mohan Nayak- 7506511065, Mulund(w), Mumbai
13. Mrs. Dlfreda Lobo & Mr. Jude P Lobo – Flat no. 102/103 – C Wing P. K. Road Saidham, Mulund(W), Mumbai-80.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 29.09.2022 stating as under:
“The desired information sought falls under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the information is Third Party Information, therefore cannot be provided being confidential.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2022. FAA’s order: 11.11.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Not present.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant in her grounds of Second Appeal has submitted at length allegations of tax evasion against all the above-mentioned entities in her RTI Application. It is her contention that one or more of the averred entities are members of one managing committee of Saidham Complex CHS Ltd. and lot of the funds are shown by the committee as covid expenses in cash while in reality these funds were siphoned off without showing any bills. That, the bank entries of the committee’s account show expenses made in the name of one or more of the averred entities under various heads like repairs, maintenance, inventory purchases etc. and one of these entities “Vrinda Enterprise” incidentally shares the same name as that of the daughter of the Secretary of Saidham Complex CHS Ltd. Similarly, another peculiar ground of appeal is that the above referred Rajani Bridal has allegedly leased out a shop next to the Appellant’s clinic on a hefty rent amount and eventually has altered the leased-out space by joining two garages, which has in turn caused encroachment in the Appellant’s building/clinic. So, for verifying her apprehensions, the Appellant insists that the above-mentioned information i.e GST returns related information of all these entities be provided to her so that she can lodge necessary complaints or pursue already filed cases etc.
It is however pertinent to note that the Appellant has filed an extremely cumbersome Second Appeal in as much as the tax details and GST returns are being sought for more than a dozen entities in the instant RTI Application, while replies and respective First Appeal(s) and FAA orders relate to multiple Commissionerate(s) and half a dozen GST divisions. In the cause title of the Second Appeal, the Appellant has arrayed multiple Commissionerate(s) as Respondent(s) and even private entities and a State Govt. entity i.e the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of Maharashtra, both of whom are not even amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission under the RTI Act. The Appellant ought to have filed separate Second Appeal(s) for each of the separate public authority (Commissionerate) whose FAA’s order she has indexed in her instant Second Appeal. For the said ambiguities and the erroneous manner of filing the instant Second Appeal, the Commission is not inclined to adversely question the absence of the Respondent CPIO during the hearing in the matter as the facts on record suggest that the case is not filed only against the said CPIO but also against multiple other CPIOs designated in separate public authorities. Yet, for the record, the Respondent CPIO is hereby directed to send a proper written explanation stating the reason for their absence during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The said explanation shall reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order.
Nonetheless, keeping aside the technicalities, the crux of the Appeal is seeking access to tax related details of various third parties and disclosure of the same stand duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Since the entities under reference also includes commercial bodies, the FAA in his order while explaining the import of Section 11 of the RTI Act (regarding the mention of which in the CPIO’s reply, the Appellant had an objection to) has invoked Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act to deny the information, which in the facts of the instant case is completely appropriate. 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. 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 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…”
Upon a detailed scrutiny of the grounds of the Second Appeal, the Commission finds that the Appellant has far stretched her apprehensions and is merely expressing conjecture against the tax liability of the averred entities. The strength of the material on record does not suggest any larger public interest in the disclosure of the personal information as well as information bearing commercial confidence of the third parties, rather the underlying premise of the instant RTI Application and the Appeal has an apparent substance of personal dispute.
Adverting to the foregoing discussion, the Commission does not find any scope of action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Vinita Nareeshkuamr Biyani v. Asstt. Commissioner CGST Service Tax Div IV, CIC/DGSTX/A/2022/159699; Date of Decision: 18/10/2023