TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission orders disclosure, issues notice for misleading information under RTI Act Section 20(1)</h1> <h3>RK. JAIN Versus MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE</h3> RK. JAIN Versus MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 317 (CIC) Issues:1. Allegation of incomplete and incorrect information provided in response to RTI application.2. Objection by CESTAT regarding disclosure of documents.3. Ex-parte decision by FAA on third party objection.4. Allegations of malafide intent to delay and obstruct information.5. Appellant's claim of false and incorrect information provided by CPIO.6. Non-disclosure of information by CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.7. Need for complete information disclosure to the appellant.8. Misleading information provided by CPIO leading to show-cause notice.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Ministry of Finance for providing incomplete information in response to his RTI application. The CPIO's responses to the queries were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the appellant's dissatisfaction and subsequent appeals.2. CESTAT objected to the disclosure of documents requested in the RTI application. The CPIO informed the appellant of CESTAT's objection, causing further complications in obtaining the desired information.3. The FAA made an ex-parte decision on the third party objection raised by CESTAT. The appellant contested this decision, alleging malafide intent to delay and obstruct the information flow.4. The appellant accused the CPIO of deliberately withholding information and providing false details to prevent disclosure. Allegations were made regarding lapses in providing complete and accurate information.5. The CPIO cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to justify non-disclosure of information, claiming the process of enquiry was not concluded at the time, thus exempting it from disclosure.6. Despite the lack of specific exemption provisions cited by CESTAT or the CPIO, the FAA invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without providing detailed reasons for withholding the information.7. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide complete information to the appellant within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the RTI request.8. The CPIO was found to have provided misleading information, prompting the Commission to issue a show-cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. This action was taken due to discrepancies between the information provided and the actual facts, highlighting the need for accountability and transparency in information dissemination.
TaxTMI 