2022 (10) TMI 138 - Commission - Central Excise

Clarification requests under RTI Act should not burden CPIOs. Public authorities not obliged to provide inference-based information.

The Central Information Commission clarified that seeking clarification or inference from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) under the Right to ... Interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - drawing of inferences and providing opinions under the RTI Act - access to information that is available and existing - provision of extracts of rules/notifications as information - suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI ActInterpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - drawing of inferences and providing opinions under the RTI Act - access to information that is available and existing - Whether the CPIO is obliged under the RTI Act to interpret GST notifications or draw inferences/opinions to answer the appellant's query about the percentage of GST payable on an incentive. - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that the RTI Act entitles applicants to information that is available and existing in records and does not obligate a public authority to draw inferences, make deductions, or provide advice or opinions. Extending Section 2(f) to require CPIOs to furnish interpretations or conclusions would unjustifiably burden CPIOs and expose them to penal consequences for substantive determinations. The Commission relied on the established principle that public authorities need not furnish interpretation or opinion not already present in records, and thereby refused to treat the appellant's request for an interpretative determination as a requirement under the RTI Act.The request for the CPIO to deduce or state the applicable GST percentage on the appellant's incentive was refused insofar as it required the CPIO to interpret or opine beyond providing existing records.Provision of extracts of rules/notifications as information - access to information that is available and existing - suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act - Whether the appellant must be provided the relevant rules/notifications or extracts thereof relating to 'consideration' (the GST terminology relevant to his query) so as to enable him to identify the applicable GST treatment. - HELD THAT: - Although the Commission rejected any obligation on the CPIO to provide a bespoke interpretation, it took a liberal view to facilitate access to existing records directly relevant to the query. The CPIO was directed to supply an extract of the relevant rules/notifications concerning the term 'consideration' under GST which would suffice for the appellant to identify the applicable position regarding the amount termed as incentive. The Commission emphasised that public authorities should place common clarifications and authoritative orders in public view (e.g., via a FAQs section) in furtherance of disclosures envisaged by Section 4, and accordingly directed administrative follow-up.The CPIO was directed to provide, free of cost within 15 days, an extract of the relevant rules/notifications pertaining to 'consideration' which would assist the appellant in ascertaining the GST treatment of the incentive.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of: the Commission held that the RTI Act does not require the CPIO to draw inferences or give an opinion on the GST percentage applicable to the appellant's incentive, but directed the CPIO to furnish an extract of the relevant rules/notifications on 'consideration' to the appellant within 15 days and advised the public authority to consider publishing common clarifications under Section 4. Issues:- Interpretation of RTI Act regarding seeking clarification/inference from CPIO.- Scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in providing information.- Obligations of CPIO in responding to RTI applications.- Directives to provide relevant rules/notifications to the appellant.- Advisory on introducing/updating FAQs Section on the website of Public Authorities.Interpretation of RTI Act regarding seeking clarification/inference from CPIO:The Central Information Commission analyzed the appellant's RTI application seeking information on the percentage of incentive amount payable to the GST Department as GST tax. The Commission observed that the relief sought was more about seeking clarification or inference from the CPIO rather than accessing information directly. It emphasized that stretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences for the CPIO could create undue pressure on them to provide accurate deductions to avoid penal provisions under the Act.Scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in providing information:Referring to a judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in a related matter, the Commission highlighted that public authorities are not obligated to provide information that requires drawing inferences or making assumptions. The Commission emphasized that public authorities are not required to furnish advice or opinions to RTI applicants. However, in a liberal view and to facilitate the proceedings, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide an extract of relevant rules/notifications related to 'consideration' to address the appellant's query regarding the incentive amount payable as GST tax.Obligations of CPIO in responding to RTI applications:The CPIO, during the hearing, explained that all GST rules and notifications are publicly available and self-explanatory. He clarified that under GST, there is no concept of an incentive but rather 'consideration.' The CPIO agreed to provide the appellant with the relevant extract of notifications to address the information sought. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide this information free of cost to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the order.Directives to provide relevant rules/notifications to the appellant:The Commission, while acknowledging the appellant's difficulty in interpreting the information provided by the CPIO, directed the CPIO to furnish the extract of relevant rules/notifications regarding 'consideration' to clarify the percentage of incentive amount payable as GST tax. This directive aimed to ensure that the appellant receives the necessary information to address his query effectively.Advisory on introducing/updating FAQs Section on the website of Public Authorities:In an advisory, the Commission highlighted the increasing trend of RTI applications seeking clarifications on policy/procedure matters of Public Authorities. It recommended that Public Authorities consider introducing or updating a FAQs section on their websites to address commonly sought issues, clarifications, orders, and circulars. This proactive step would help in providing relevant information to the public and potentially reduce the burden of RTI applications seeking clarifications rather than specific records.In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal by directing the CPIO to provide the necessary information to the appellant and advised Public Authorities to consider enhancing proactive disclosures through FAQs sections on their websites.