Information Related To Outcome Of Tax Evasion Petition Sought Under RTI Act Can't Be Provided: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that information related to the outcome of a tax evasion petition sought under the Right to Information Act cannot be provided.

The bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice G. Satapathy has observed that the claim of the petitioner with regard to the supply of information sought in the application filed under the Right to Information Act is not permissible in view of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act.

As per Section 8(1)(i), there shall be no obligation to give any citizen cabinet papers, including records of the deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers.

The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to issue directions to the respondent department to disclose the broad outcome of the tax evasion petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to get information pertaining to the tax evasion petition against Harmohan Sarangi and Himansu Sarangi.

The Public Information Officer rejected his claim, which has been confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority.

The petitioner contended that he only wanted to know the outcome of the tax evasion petition he filed. Though the petitioner asked for information under the Right to Information Act, it was not provided to him.

The department contended that the petitioner has approached the Court in a camouflage manner, claiming to know the broad outcome of the proceeding, but that itself is contrary to clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act. Section 8(1)(i) provides not to disclose the proceeding before anybody. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the orders.

The court noted that the information sought by the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner has tried to make a roving inquiry and for the supply of those materials, which are not to be disclosed in view of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act.

The court held that no illegality or irregularity had been committed by the authority in passing the orders.

Counsel For Petitioner: S. Devi

Counsel For Respondent: S.C. Mohanty

Case Title: Deepak Kumar Acharya Versus Commissioner, Income Tax Dept and others

Case No.: W.P (C) No. 6471 of 2020

Click Here To Read The Order