CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001424/4181
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001424
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar,
S-2/83, 2nd Floor,
Old Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi-18
Respondent : Mr. Kmal Dev Dogra
Public Information Officer,
DC Zone-VI,
Trade and Taxes (Sales Tax)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate
Delhi
RTI application filed on : 02/09/2008
PIO replied : 26/09/2008
First appeal filed on : 23/10/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 20/11/2008
Second Appeal received on : 05/01/2009
Sl. Information Sought: PIO's Reply:
1. The Appellant requested "In response to your aforementioned complaint the
the PIO to inform him reassessment for annual year 2002-03 of M/s KEW
about the status as well as Precision Parts (P) Ltd., 41 DLF Industrial Area, Kirti
action taken along with Nagar, New Delhi (RC No. LC/52/033235/0258) was done
necessary documents being vide assessment order No. 750 dated 07/12/2007 and a
Notice/Order etc. as proof demand of Rs.500365/- under Delhi Sales Tax Act and
of action taken with respect Rs.285211/- under Central Sales Tax was created against
to letter dated 03/07/06, the dealer. The dealer has further gone in Appeal before
filed before the the First Appellate Authority (JC-VI) against the re-
Commissioner of Sales tax, assessment order and this appeal is still under process.
Bikri Kar Bhavan, I.P.
Estate.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incorrect information provided by the PIO. Backing evidence, which was requested for, was not
provided.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The PIO provided irrelevant information. The PIO may go through the case again and inform the
appellant of the status of the action taken on the complaint filed by him.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
1. The order given by the FAA is erroneous since no time frame has been imposed on the
PIO to comply with the same order.
2. The order of the FAA is unjustified in the view of the fact that even after lapse of a long
time PIO is merely advised to provide status of the Appellant’s petition dated 03/07/2006
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The Following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Achin on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar
Respondent: Mr. Kmal Dev Dogra, PIO
The PIO has given the information about action taken against a particular dealer but not
responded to the query of the Appellant whether this was in response to the Complaint filed. The
PIO claims that this information is not with their department but with the enforcement branch.
The PIO should have obtained this information seeking the assistance of the officer in the
enforcement branch under Section 5 (4) and provided it to the Appellant. The PIO is warned that
such a failure would invite penal provisions of Section 20(1). The PIO is directed to get the
information about the action taken on the complaint of the Appellant and provide it to him.
Decision
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the Appellant before 3 August 2009.
This decision is 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 cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)