476 Kanhaiyalal Motilal Talera 04 06 12 6/5/2009 12:15:32 Deepak 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000476
Appellant: Shri Kanhaiyalal Motilal Talera
Public Authority: Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai
(through Shri Arivazhagan,
Assistant Commissioner)
Date of Hearing: 04/06/2009
Date of Decision: 04/06/2009
FACTS
:-
By his letter of 12/09/2008, the Appellant had requested for information on the
following three points:-
“1) Entire proceeding viz. demand notice, application, say, written
statement, arguments, affidavits, applications, etc. filed by both the
parties in O No.16/2005 of M/s TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. Chennai
and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, IV Division,
Service Tax Commissionerate.
2) All Orders, interim and final, passed in the above proceeding
O.No.16/2005.
3) Entire proceeding viz. appeal, say, written statement, arguments,
affidavits, applications, etc. filed by both the parties in Appeal
No.4/2006 challenged by M/s TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. challenging
the orders of O.No.16/2005.”
2. By letter dated 07/10/2008, CPIO had declined to disclose this information on the
ground that the information related to a third party and also on the further ground that the
firm in question, namely, M/s. TVS Lean Logistics Limited, Chennai, since been closed
and was not in existence.
3. On Appeal, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10/12/2008, had upheld the
decision of CPIO. The Appellate Authority had observed that information sought by the
Appellant pertains to Order-in-Original No.16/2005 dated 10/06/2005 and Order-in-
Appeal No.7/2006 dated 15/02/2006 in respect of M/s TVS Lean Logistics Limited,
Chennai, which is a third party and, thus, clearly falls u/s 8(1)(d) read with section 11(1)
of the RTI Act.
4. The present Appeal is directed against the order of the CPIO/AA.
476 Kanhaiyalal Motilal Talera 04 06 12 6/5/2009 12:15:32 Deepak 2
5. The matter was heard on 04/06/2009. The Appellant did not appear before the
Commission but sent a written representation dated 02/06/2009 wherein he has pleaded
that the appeal documents submitted by him may be taken into consideration while
deciding the matter. One of the grounds adduced by the Appellant is as follows:-
“2.4 The Applicant found that the taxation authority has been lenient
and granted unintended benefit to the above said assessee to whom
exemption from the service tax was granted. Thus the government
revenue of large amount was lost due to incorrect and illegal basis of
consideration given by the assessing authority.”
6. It would, thus, appear, that the main grievance of the Appellant is that undue
favour has purportedly been shown to M/s TVS Lean Logistics Limited by the Taxation
Authorities resulting in loss of Government Revenue. Shri Arivazhagan would submit
that Service Tax was first assessed by the Assistant Commissioner and he passed a
suitable order in the matter. Later, the Appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer
was heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has since decided the matter. It is
open to the aggrieved party to move CESTAT for relief. It is also his submission that
the Appellant herein is an interloper and he is no way connected with the affairs of the
company and, therefore, no entitled to third party information for the simple reason that
he has not been able to establish any larger public interest in the disclosure of information
sought by him. The Appellant is not before the Commission to contest this position.
7. Suffice to say that no evidence has been produced before the Commission to
support the allegation of undue benefit in the matter of Service Tax having been shown to
the company in question by the concerned authorities through corrupt motives or
otherwise. The Appellant has made a general allegation and has not supported it with
any documentary or oral evidence. In this view of the matter, it would be difficult for
the Commission to take it on its face value. Obviously, the Appellant is seeking the third
party information for which he has not been able to establish larger public interest.
DECISION
8. In view of this, the appeal does not seem to have merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
Fax: 011 2610 62 76