News Update

Cus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCCX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaGST - Conclusion that taxable person is providing a service to supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law: HCIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US officialI-T- As per Section 119(2)(b), power to condone applications relate to claims for amount exceeding Rs 50 lakhs are to be considered by CBDT; however it is impermissible for CBDT to pass order on merits: HC8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 for unexplained income & u/s 69 for unexplained expenditure not tenable where complete transactional details are furnished & not doubted: HCRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthI-T- Delay in filing ITR is per se insufficient reason to estimate assessee's profit @15% on turnover, more so where audited financial report is filed in timely manner: ITATMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- For invoking section 69A, assessee should be found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article & which is not recorded in the books of account: ITATGovt proposes Guidelines for ethical approach to Coal MiningI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024I-T- Lending money with the primary intention of earning interest can be considered a business activity, but nature and manner of lending, as well as the frequency, should be taken into account: ITAT
Untitled Document

CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

CIRCULAR NO. 07/04/2013


Dated: 4.4.2013

Sub: Delhi High Court's decision in LPA No.618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 in the matter of disclosure of information under the provisions of RTI Act, relating to disciplinary matters.

The attention of the CVOs concerned is drawn to the Judgement/Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.11.2012 in LPA No. 618/2012 in case of Union Public Service Commission Vs R. K. Jain, in which the issue of disclosure of information/documents under the provisions of RTI Act, pertaining to vigilance/disciplinary proceedings has been considered by the Hon'ble Court.

2. The Hon'ble Court in its judgement, had observed that:

"The counsel for the respondent has argued that in the case before the Supreme Court the CIC itself hud denied the information while in the present case CIC itself has allowed the information. To our mind the same is irrelevant 'The counsel for the respondent has next sought to take us through the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. However, in the light of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court and which if applicable lo the facts of the present case is binding on this Bench, we are not required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the, reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. Faced therewith the counsel for the respondent has lastly contended that the appellant UPSC in the present case is not the employer of the officer Shri G. S. Narang, information pertaining to whom was sought and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable to the employer only. We however fail to see the difference. The ratio of the dicta aforesaid of (he Supreme Court is thai the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(i) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activates or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. 'Though the appellant UPSC is not the employer of Shri G. S. Narang,, information pertaining to whom is sought by the respondent, but his employer had sought the advice/opinion/recommendation of the appellant UPSC in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against the said Shri G.S. Narang and we fail to see as to how it makes a difference whether the information relating to disciplinary proceedings is sought from the employer or from the consultant of the employer. What is exempt in the hands of the employer would certainly be exempt in the hands of consultant of the employer also. The advice given by the appellant UPSC would necessarily pertain to the disciplinary action against Shri G.S. Narang. Section 8(1)(i) exempts from disclosure personal information, irrespective of with whom if is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought".

" The respondent at no stage set-up a case of the said personal information being required in public interest. In fact when we asked the counsel for the respondent as to what was the public interest in which the said personal information was sought, he replied by stating that an information seeker under the Act is not required to state the reasons for seeking the information. That being the position, the need for any discussion further on the said aspect does not arise.".

"We therefore, following the dicta in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, set aside the judgment date 13th July, 2012 of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant UPSC, consequently setting aside the order dated 12th january, 2011 of the CIC".

3. The CVOs may bring the above quoted Judgement/Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the notice of the all CPIOs/Appellate Authorities of their respective organization, who may take due cognizance of the same, while deciding the RTI Applications and Appeals relating to disclosure of documents/information pertaining to vigilance/disciplinary proceedings (including Orders of the Disciplinary Authority).

4. The complete decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforementioned case is available on its website. www.delhihighcourt.nic.in in downloadable form under the head "JUDGEMENTS".

NO.CVC/RTI/MISC/10/002

[Rajiv Verma]
Under Secretary & 'Nodal' CPIO

TIOL Tube Latest

India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.