2012 (4) TMI 325 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appellant in relation to respondent No.2 firm, brother of the appellant, moved application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 related to the returns filed with the Sales Tax Commissioner - CPIO and CIC refused to divulge the aforesaid information Held that - Section 8(1)(d) levies no obligation to give any citizen information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information - present appeal is nothing but misuse of the process of law and hereby dismiss with costs of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of Rs. 25,000/-imposed by the learned Single Judge.

Summary

Issues:
Misuse of Right to Information Act, 2005 by appellant to harass respondent, Confidentiality of information under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, Interpretation of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act in relation to commercial confidence.

Analysis:
The appellant sought extensive information from the Sales Tax Commissioner regarding the respondent's firm under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant's relentless pursuit of this information was deemed as a means to harass the respondent, who happened to be the appellant's brother. The information requested included detailed financial and tax-related data, which the authorities refused to disclose citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of public interest and the misuse of the Act for personal vendettas.

The confidentiality of the information sought was protected under Section 98 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, which explicitly prohibits disclosure except in specific circumstances. The court highlighted that even the judiciary cannot demand such information unless in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Act imposes penalties on government servants who disclose such confidential data. The appellant's actions were seen as a clear attempt to settle personal scores rather than serving any public interest.

The appellant's argument, citing a judgment from the Jharkhand High Court regarding public records, was dismissed as irrelevant to the present case. The court clarified that the principle of public right to information applies in contexts such as tender evaluations for public works, where transparency is crucial. In this case, seeking sensitive financial details lacked any public interest element and was viewed as an abuse of legal processes.

Ultimately, the court deemed the appeal as a misuse of the law and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant. This decision aimed to deter further frivolous litigation and reiterated the importance of upholding confidentiality provisions in tax-related matters.