Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facie provided misleading information to the appellant, at Clause (f) of his reply dated 16-9-2011 that no such report of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. C. Satapathy has been received in the Department of Revenue, whereas Registrar, CESTAT by his letter dated 18-8-2011 has already forwarded a copy of the said report to the Department of Revenue. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to the Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant- Decided in favour of appellant. - - - CIC/SS/A/2012/001342 - Dated:- 26-4-2013 - Ms. Sushma Singh, J. Shri R.K. Jain, the Appellant. Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sought in clause (A) to (E) . The CPIO vide letter No. R-20011/37/2011-Ad.IC, dated 16-9-2011 replied to the appellant as follows : (A) A copy of the enquiry report was received in this Department on 25-8-2011; (C) The documents required for examination of the report are being gathered; (E) No other communication has been received or sent with reference to the above mentioned Enquiry Committee Report; (F) No such report has been received in the Department; and (B, D G) A copy of the notice issued to CESTAT u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act is enclosed. Thereafter the CPIO vide letter dated 4-10-2012 informed the appellant that CESTAT has objected to the disclosure of the document referred to in the RTI application. A copy of CESTAT s objection .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eye of law. As soon as the fresh report is ready, it can be furnished to the appellant. From this, it is construed that the process of enquiry has not been concluded and therefore, disclosure of information at this stage stands exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the decision of the CPIO for non-disclosure of information sustainable u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the instant appeal stands disallowed. 4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that the FAA has illegally and malafidely taken an ex-parte decision on the third party objection of the CESTAT inspite of the appellant having requested for a copy of the CESTAT s reply and an opportunity to place his say on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich the report is received and name and designation of the Officer signing it has not been provided. The CPIO has provided incomplete information with regard to the clause (C) of the RTI application in question. He merely stated that documents required for examination of the report are being gathered. This information is provided on 16-9-2011 after the receipt of the letter dated 18-8-2011 of the Registrar, CESTAT, wherein in the third para, the Registrar has clearly stated the President, CESTAT vide his order dated 12-8-2011 has rejected the report and a new Committee comprising of Hon ble Shri P.G. Chacko has been constituted. The FAA erred in not appreciating that the CESTAT in its reply dated 29-9-2011 has nowhere objected to providing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ving reasons as to how the information if disclosed would impede the process of investigation/enquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. 7. In view of the above, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide complete information, as per record to the appellant as requested in his RTI application, free of cost within ten days of receipt of this order. 8. The Commission is of the view that Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary, has prima facie provided misleading information to the appellant, at Clause (f) of his reply dated 16-9-2011 that no such report of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. C. Satapathy has been received in the Department of Revenue, whereas Registrar, CESTAT by his letter dated 18-8-2011 has al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates