TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation to the petitioner with regard to assessment of sales tax of M/s. D.C.M. Ltd. Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for the period 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90; and b) pass such other and further order which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case" 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his late father, Sh. O.C. Jain had provided information to the department with regard to the invasion of sales tax by M/s DCM Ltd. and on the basis of the said information, an additional demand of Rs. 44 Crores was raised against M/s DCM Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that the Delhi Administration vide a Notification No. F.3/77/69/Fin.(C) dated 28.12.1970 had provided that an infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. It is submitted that the aforesaid information was sought to support the claim of the petitioner's late father that the department had raised an additional demand of Rs. 44 Crores against M/s DCM Ltd. 6. By way of the aforesaid application, the petitioner sought for the following information:- "i. Information with regard to assessment of sales tax of M/s. DCM limited Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi for the period 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1989-90. ii. The amount of additional demands raised for each individual? iii. The amount of additional tax assessed for each individual year by the Sales Tax Department. The amount of additional tax deposited/realized for each individual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appreciating that the information sought by the petitioner did not fall within the restrictions of the provisions mentioned hereinabove and further, that the supply of said information would not amount to information relating to commercial confidence, as it was on the basis of the information provided by the petitioner's father an additional demand of Rs. 44 Crores was raised against M/s DCM Ltd. However, the second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2007 by the learned Central Information Commission. 10. Per contra, the counter affidavit dated 12.09.2008 filed on behalf of the respondents, it is reiterated that the information sought by the petitioner could not be provided in view of the aforementioned provision. It is a catego....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat no extra tax has been recovered from the assessee which could attribute on the basis of an information given by the petitioner's father. 6. That since petitioner's father had filed a suit for recovery in the High Court which ultimately was dismissed. The matter was placed before a Committee of senior officers of Commissioner Sales Tax, Additional Secretary (Finance), Vigilance Officer and Assessment Officer of Ward 07 to look into the provisions of scheme, the complaints and whether the demand or assessment is on the basis of any information given by the petitioner's father. The Committee after going through the complaints and the orders of bifurcation passed by the High Court came to the conclusion that the assessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not in any way serve any larger public interest and the information available with Department of Trade & Taxes is of commercial confidence in nature in terms of section 98 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the disclosure of this information has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The section 98 (1) of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is reproduced as under: "98. Returns, etc., to be confidential.- (1) All particulars contained in any statement, made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or In any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act, other than proceedings before a criminal court, shall, save as provided in sub-section (3), be treate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is, therefore, dismissed. If unsatisfied, the appellant may appeal to the Commission within 90 days from the date of this order at: "Central Information Commission, Department of Personal & Training, Block No.4, 5th floor, Old JNU Campus, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-11 0067" 13. Subsequently, the second appeal was also disposed of vide order date 06.10.2007, by observing as under:- "3. The type of information requested by the appellant is covered by the ratio of the Commission's decisions in income tax matters in the case of Mrs. Shobha R. Arora Vs. Income Tax, Mumbai: Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00220; Decision No. 1191/C(A)/2006: Date of Decision : 14.7.2006 and Ms. Neeru Bajaj Vs. Income Tax; Appeal Nos. CIC/AT/A/2006/00644 & ....