TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the State Information Commission, Bench at Nashik, in Appeal No. 2010/RMA/CR/1937/2009, dated 21st December, 2010. 3. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties the controversy boils down to only two issues for the present, which are as follows :- (a) Whether the petitioners are covered under Section 2(h)(i) so as to be amenable to the jurisdiction under the Right to Information Act, 2005? (b) Whether the first proviso to Section 20(1) of the said Act has been duly followed before penalty was imposed on the petitioners? 4. Shri Sangit draws my attention to Section 2(h)(i) which reads thus :- "2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition, it is contended by the petitioners that petitioner trust is registered under the provisions of BPT Act and not funded by the Government. Factually, the petitioner trust runs Agricultural Science Centre. The Ministry of Agriculture of Central Government had given funding to the said Agricultural Science Centre for the purpose of research and education. Undisputedly, the Central Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture had given finance to Agricultural Science Centre. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that no fund was made available by the Government is fundamentally improper. I say and submit that for the first time said contention was raised by the petitioners and prior to that at no point of time said contentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as well while arguing against the appeal. 9. I am not in agreement with the submissions of Shri Sawant for the reason that if these submissions are accepted, it would mean that every respondent facing such an appeal will have to be under a constant shadow or fear of losing the appeal and suffering penalty, on the presumption that the appeal will be allowed and penalty would be imposed. This, therefore, would mean that before a verdict on the appeal is delivered, the concerned party will have to presume that it has lost the case and also make submissions on the penalty. This does not seem to be the intent and object of the said proviso. 10. The words/phraseology used in the said proviso, especially "shall be given a reasonabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Circle, Bangalore, reported at AIR 1960 SC 1326, the three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dealing with a case under Section 28(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, held as under :- "4. There is no question here that the requirements of S. 28(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act were not completely fulfilled. If the appellants had not filed their return, as they were required by law to do, the omission would attract cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 28. We say nothing as to that. Sub-s. (3) of S. 28, however, requires that the penalty shall not be imposed without affording to the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This opportunity was denied to the appellants & therefore the order of the Income-tax Officer wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not be imposed. To achieve this object, which appears to be the intention of the Legislature in providing a proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, it is incumbent upon the authority to issue a show cause notice under the proviso to Section 20(1). 14. In the light of the above, the petition is, therefore, partly allowed with the following directions :- (a) Impugned judgment and order dated 21st December, 2010, deli-vered by the State Information Commission, Bench at Nashik, in Appeal No. 2010/RMA/CR/1937/2009, is quashed and set aside. (b) The said appeal is relegated back to the said authority for a fresh hearing. (c) Both the pa....