|
To
The Chief Commissioner of
Customs,
60 Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
TN.
Under the Right to Information Act -
2005.
Regd. Post Ack.
due
24.4.2006
Dear Sir,
The trusts in the name
of Mr. Satya Sai Baba.
Lots of costly
instruments are imported from overseas especially from United States and other
countries by Steamer and by Air through the members of the trusts. Most of
the consignments though new costly instruments are imported as scrap and
sold.
I shall be
thankful to you if you will kindly provide me with the following details:
1. The list of
consignments from overseas from United States and other countries consigned to
the Trusts floated by Mr. Sathya Sai Baba through Tamilnadu and Andhra check
post.
2. The details of bill
of lading, consignor, consignee, value of goods, customs duty paid on the above
and if the trusts are exempt from customs duty the customs duty, generally
collected and whether all the goods reached Prasanthinilayam or Bangalore and
they can be checked at SSB’s institutions now.
I am enclosing herewith
a postal order No. 33 E 101830 dated 24.4.2006 for Rs. 10/- being the prescribed
fees under RTI Act. Please note the India Post is a Bank and the Prime Minister,
President and the Reserve Bank of India has accepted it so and for your
information I am giving below the copy of the receipt issued by PM’s Secretariat
under RTI Act - 2005.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
(B. Premanand)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF
FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OFFICER OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
NO.60 RAJAJI SALAI, CUSTOM HOUSE, CHENNAI 600
001.
CUS.CHENNAI/CCO-CPIO/08-06-CCO -
Dated 26.04.2006.
To
Shri B.Premanad,
Indian skeptic,
11/7,Chettipalayam Road,
PODANUR 641 023.Tamil Nadu
Sir,
Sub: RTI
ACT,2005 – Request for details of import made by Trusts in the name of Mr.Satya Sai Baba –
reg.
Your application dated
24.04.2006 on the above subject has been transferred to the Commissioner of
Customs (Import) and Commissioner of Customs (Air), Custom House, Chennai-1
in terms of Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act for an appropriate
reply directly to
you.
Your faithfully,
(J.M.KENNEDY)
JOINT COMMISSIONER (CCO)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF
FINANCE
OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CHENNAI AIRPORTAIR CARGO COMPLEX,
MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600 027.
F.No. S.Misc.7/2006 –
RTI-Air -
Dated 25.05.2006
To
Mr B.Premanad,
Indian Skeptic,
11/7,Chettipalayam Road,
Podanur 641 023,Tamil Nadu
Gentleman,
Sub: Right to Information Act,
2005– Import made by trusts in the name of Mr.Satya Sai Baba – Reg.
Please refer to your
letter dated 24.04.2006 seeking information regarding imports made by trusts in
the name of Mr.Satya Sai Baba,under RTI Act, 2005.
The details
sought by you are failing within the ambit of Section 8(1) (d) of Right to
Information Act, 2005. As per Section 8(1) (d) of the said Act,
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.
Hence, it has been
decided by the CPIO that the information/details sought by you have been
exempted from being
provided.
Yours
faithfully,
(M.MANIMARAN)
Asst.Commissioner, CAPIO
To
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Asst. Commissioner, CAPIO
Office of the Commissioner of
Customs,
Chennai Air Cargo Complex,
Meenambakkam Chennai - 600 027. TN.
Under the Right to Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack.
due dated
30.5.2006
Dear Sir,
I refer to your letter F.No. S.Misc.7/2006-RTI Air dated 25.5.2006
received by me on 29.5.2006.
Please note
that the instruments, materials etc., imported by various Satya Sai Baba’s
Trusts do not come under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
They are neither commercial confidence, trade secrets
or intelligence property but instruments etc imported for use by the Trusts in
their hospitals, educational institutions etc and were also exempted from Import
duty etc. So I have the right under RTI act to know what was imported by AIR and
SEA to find out whether they have been used or sold as import lincences have
been given to the Trusts for purpose of use and exempted from customs
duty.
You ought to have given
me the address of the next appeal authority I have to approach under the RTI Act
which you have not done.
The information
would not harm the third party unless he has misused the exemptions given to
them.
If you are unable to
give the information sought for kindly let me know the address of the chief CPIO
to prefer an appeal.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
(B. Premanand)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CHENNAI AIRPORT, AIR CARGO COMPLEX,
MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600 027.
F.No. S.Misc.7/2006 –
RTI-Air Dated 05.06.2006
To
Mr. B.Premanad,
Indian Skeptic,
11/7,Chettipalayam Road,
Podanur 641 023.
Tamil Nadu
Gentleman,
Sub: Right to Information Act,
2005– Imports made by trusts in The name of Mr.Satya Sai Baba – Reg.
Please refer to your
letter dated 30.05.2006 seeking information under RTI Act,
2005.
The Appellate
authority is the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Zone, Custom
House,Chennai-1
Yours faithfully,
(M.MANIMARAN)
Asst. Commissioner, CAPIO
5.6.2006
To
The Chief Commissioner of Customs
Chennai Zone, Customs House
Chennai - 600 001.
Under the Right to
Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack. due
Appeal on the order of the
Commissioner of Chennai Air Port
Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam,
Chennai - 600 027.
No. F.No.S.Misc - 7/2006-RTI Air
dated 25.5.2006.
Dear Sir,
I am enclosing herewith the xerox copies of the following letters
as annexures :
Annexure -
1
My application dated
24.4.2006 under RTI Act - 2005 sent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai - 600 001.
Annexure -
2
Reply by the Joint
Commissioner (CCO), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, No. 60, Rajaji Salai,
Customs House, Chennai - 600 001. No. CUS. Chennai CCO-CPIO/08/06-CCO dated
26.4.2006 transferring my application dated 24.4.2006 to
1. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and
2. Commissioner of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai - 600 001 for
appropriate reply directly to me.
Annexure -
3
Letter No.
S.Misc.7/2006-RTI Air dated 25.5.2006 from the Asst. Commissioner (CAPIO)
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai Air Port, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027 informing
me that CPIO has decided that the information details sought by me has been
exempted from being provided as per section 8(1)(d).
Annexure -
4
Letter No. F.No.
401/59/2006-CUS III dated 12.4.2006 from The Under Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Customs,
New Delhi in Para 4 has already confirmed that some of the details requested
by me in para 3 can be provided by the concerned CPIO of the Ports/Air Ports
where the goods are imported.
Grounds
Before coming to the
conclusion that information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property of which would harm the competitive position of the third
party. The CAPIO has not acted according to section 11(1) of the RTI Act
2005.
2. The CAPIO has not explained how he came to the decision.
3. The CAPIO under section 19(5) has not proved that the denial of a
request was justified. He has not explained how he came to the
conclusion.
4. Instruments, materials etc imported by various Satya Sai Baba’s Trusts
do not come under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act as they are neither commercial
confidence, trade secrets or intelligence property.
5. These materials are imported for use by the Satya Sai Baba Trusts in
their hospitals, educational institutions, water scheme etc., and exempted from
customs duty.
6. So a citizen of India has a right under RTI Act to know what was
imported by Air and Sea have been used by the trusts or sold, as the import
licenses and waiving of the customs duty etc are for purpose of use.
Relief
sought
To
provide me with the details and documents asked for in my application dated
24.4.2006 under RTI Act 2005.
I, B. Premanand,
aged 76 years, son of Late K.B. Prabhu, residing at 11/7, Chettipalayam Road,
Podanur - 641 023. Tamilnadu do hereby affirm that the above details are true
and declare that the documents submitted in this appeal are true xerox copies of
the original records.
Signed on this 10th day of June
2006.
(B. Premanand)
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOM HOUSE, RAJAJI SALAI,CHENNAI-600 001.
FILE NO.CUS.CHENNAI/CCO/APPEALS/20/2006
ORDER NO.17/2006 - CCO-CPIO
(APPEALS) DATED 04.07.2006
PASSED BY : SHRI J.K.BATRA, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS
DATE OF ISSUE: 04.07.2006
ORDER-IN-APPEAL
1. This Order-in-Appeal
is issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
2005.
2. An Appeal against
this order can be preferred to the Central information Commission, Old JNU
Campus, Block 4, 5th Floor, New Delhi 110 067 under sub-Section (3) of Section 19
of the Right to information Act, 2005.
3. An Appeal against
this order must be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of this
Order.
4. For further information
regarding procedure of appeals, please visit http://cic.gov.in/
Appeal from: Shri
B.Premanand, Podanur, Tamilnadu.
Appeal against the
decision: F.No.S.Misc.7/2006-RTI-Air Dated 25.05.2006
Decided by: Shri
C.Rajan, CPIO/.Commissioner of Customs (Air), Custom House,Chennai.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS,
CUSTOM HOUSE, RAJAJI
SALAI,CHENNAI-600 001.
F.No.CUS/CHENNAI/CCO-APPEALS/20/06 DATED:
-6-2006
Passed by Shri J.K.Batra,
Chief Commissioner of Customs
Chennai Customs Zone
(First Appellate Authority under the
Right to Information Act, 2005)
ORDER - IN - APPEAL
Appellant: Shri
B.Premanand, M/s. Indian Skeptic, Podanur
Appeal against the decision:
F.No.S.Misc 7/2006-RTI-Air dt. 25.5.2006.
Decided by: Shri C.Rajan, Cental
Public Information Officer/Commissioner of Customs (Air), Custom
House,Chennai
Subject: Request to provide the
details of imports made by trusts in the name of Shri Satya Sai Baba under the
Right to Information Act, 2005- reg
This is an appeal filed
by Shri B.Premanand, M/s. Indian Skeptic,11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur, Tamil
Nadu (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant) against the above decision
communicated vide letter F.No.S.Misc 7/2006-RTI-Air dated 25.5.2006 seeking
details regarding imports made by trusts in the name of Shri Satya Sai Baba
under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It is seen from the
records that the appellant forwarded a letter dated 24.4.2006 addressed to the
Chief Commissioner of Customs seeking certain details regarding imports
made by the Trusts floated by Shri Satya Sai Baba under the Right to information Act, 2005. As the
details sought for pertain to other Public Authorities, the above application
was transferred to the CPIO/Commissioner of Customs (Imports) and
CPIO/Commissioner of Customs (Air) on 26.4.2006 for an appropriate reply to the
applicant and transfer of the application was intimated to Shri Premanand on the
same day.
Central Public
Information Officer (Air) vide letter F.No.S.Misc.7/2006-RTI-Air dt.25.5.2006
rejected of the appellant on the ground that the details sought are falling
within the ambit of Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and it
exempts providing information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property and 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.
Central Public Information Officer (Imports) also rejected the above Application
in the letter No.S.Misc.15/2005-Enquiry dt. 23.5.2006 stating that as per
Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act,2005, the information sought by
the appellant does not fall within the ambit of the larger public interest
warranting the disclosure of such information.
Being aggrieved with the
decision taken by the CPIO/Commissioner of Customs (Air), Shri Premanand has
preferred the present appeal.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Central Public
Information Officer (Air) has furnished comments on the above issue vide
his letter dt.23.5.2006 stating that his request was examined and rejected since
the details sought for were of a third party which will fall within the ambit of
Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act,2005 and referred the decision
of the Central Public Information Commission against an appeal filed by one Shri
Ramesh Shetty, Impex Statistics Services, Mumbai wherein it was held that the
disclosure of names of the importer/exporter in the daily list has been
forbidden by Notification No.128/2004-CUS(NT) dated 19.11.2004 amending the Rule
for Publication of Daily Lists of Imports and Exports which was mandatory
provision for the last 49 years. Govt. of India has decided as policy matter
that not to disclose the names of the importers/exporters on the ground that
revealing of such information would violate commercial confidentiality.
Since these Rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation and have the
legal force of Parliament, exemption from disclosure of information is
appropriate under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information
Act,2005.
CPIO/Commissioner of
Customs (Imports) has also furnished comments in this regard that the information
was sought by an individual and observed that Ministry of Law and Justice
clarified that the expression ‘Public interest” means those interests which
concern the public at large; that matter of public interest does not mean that
which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement
but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected and that public
interest concerns welfare and rights of the community or a class
thereof.
The preamble of the Right to Information
Act,2005 has recognized that revelation of certain information is likely to
conflict with other public interests and need for preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information such as names of the
importers/exporters. In this given case, the details sought for pertains
to a third party and revealing such information is exempted in terms of
Section 8(1)(d) of the above Act. Disclosing the same would hamper
confidentiality and harms the intellectual property of a third party.
ORDER
I have carefully gone
through the appeal in the context of overall objectives of the Right to
Information Act,2005, comments furnished by the CPIOs and the materials
available on records.
In the light of the
above findings and discussions the details sought for squarely fall within the
purview of Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act,2005 which exempts
providing information relating to a third party unless the competent authority
is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information. The subject case does not fall within the ambit of the larger
public interest. Hence the appeal is
rejected.
(J.K.BATRA)
CHIEF COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS
(APPELLATE
AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005)
To
1 Shri
B.Premanand, Indian Skeptic, 11/7, Chettipalayam
Road, Podanur, Tamilnadu.
2 The Commissioner of
Customs (Air), Custom House, Chennai
3 The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom
House, Chennai.
To
The Chief Commissioner of
Customs
Customs House, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 001.TN.
Under the Right to
Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack. due Dated 17.7.2006
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your
letter No. 17/2006-CCO-CPIO (Appeals) dated 4.7.2006 received by me on 7.7.2006
dismissing my first Appeal to your goodself dated 10.6.2006 against decision
F.No. S.Misc. 7/2006-RTI Act dated 25.5.2006 of the CPIO.
Please note that Govt.
of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Central Board of Excise &
Customs, New Delhi by their letter No. F.No. 401/59/2006-Cus. III dated
12.4.2006 (copy of the letter enclosed) has already informed me that the
information asked for can be provided to me by the concerned CPIO of the
Ports/Airports and I am surprised that you have dismissed my 1st appeal quoting
the following which are not applicable to my petition as Trusts founded in the
name of Mr. Satya Sai Baba are not commercial enterprises and do not come under
the perview of section 8(1)(d) as the imports are made where they have been
exempted from custom duties and are for use in their Superspeciality Hospitals
and other charitable purposes.
I would be
thankful to you if you will kindly provide me the following certified copies of
the documents which you have quoted in your above order which are necessary for
filing 2nd appeal.
1. Notification
No. 128/2004-CUS(NT) dated 19.11.2004
2. The photocopy of CPIO (Imports) rejecting my application
in letter No. 5.Misc. 15/2005. Enquiry dated 23.5.2006 as both
the copies have not been provided to me, on which you based
your judgment.
3. Photocopy of the
Decision of the Central Public Information Commission against an appeal filed by
one Shri. Ramesh Shetty, Impex Statistical Commission, Mumbai.
As you have
quoted the above documents while passing orders on my 1st appeal, kindly provide
me the same.
As the above three
documents have not been attached to the order in 1st appeal mentioned in the
first para I am not able to file 2nd appeal as to how you came to the conclusion
dismissing my first appeal and you will be liable for the delay.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
(B. Premanand)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF
FINANCE
OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOM HOUSE,60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 001.
F.NO.CUS
CHENNAI/CPIO(APPEALS)20/26 Dated 21.07.2006
To
Mr. B.Premanad,
Indian skeptic,
11/7,Chettipalayam Road,
Podanur 641 023.
Tamil Nadu
Sir,
Sub: Request to provide the details of imports made by
Trusts in the name of Shri Satya Baba under the Right to Information
Act,2005-reg.
Please refer to your
letter 17.07.2006 on the above subject. Vide the said letter, you had requested
for certain documents citied in the Order-in-Appeal issued under the Right to
Information Act.
(a) Notification
No.128/2004-cus.(NT) dated 19.11.2004 is a freely
downloadable document available in the website of the Central Board of Excise & Customs
(http//www.cbec.gov.in).
(b) Letter
No,S.Misc.15/2005-Enquiry dated 23.05.2006 of the CPIO/ Commissioner of Customs (Imports) rejecting your application
for information is addressed to you by name.
(c) Decision
vide F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00012 dated 10.03.2006 issued by the Central Information Commission in the matter of an
appeal filed by Shri Ramesh
Shetty, Impex Statistics Services, Mumbai is also a freely downloadable document available in the
website of the Central Information Commission
(http//cic.gov.in).
However, copies of the
above documents are enclosed and forwarded herewith in response to your
request.
Yours faithfully,
(J.M.KENNEDY)
JOINT COMMISSIONER
(CCO)
Encl: as above.
To
The CPIO
The Commissioner of Customs (Inport) (Sea
Port)
No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House,
Chennai - 600 001.
Under the Right to Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack.
due dated
5.6.2006
Dear Sir,
I refer to the letter
No. CUS.CHENNAI/CCO/CPIO/08/06-CCO dated 26.4.2006 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, The Joint Commissioner (CCO) No. 60,
Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai - 600 001 that my application dated
24.4.2006 on the above subject has been transferred to the Commissioner of
Customs (Import) and Commissioner of Customs (Air), Custom House, Chennai - 1 in
terms of section (3) of the Right to Information Act for an appropriate reply
directly to me.
You have not so far sent
me the appropriate reply and 30 days have already been over under section 7 of
the RTI Act which will lead to a penalty of Rs. 250/- for each day which I would
request you to kindly avoid.
As I have to file
an appeal within 30 days if I am not provided with the details and documents
asked for, kindly send them before 15.6.2006 as I have to file an appeal within
30 days from 29.5.2006.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
(B. Premanand)
Received on 24.7.2006
Website: chennaicustoms.org
PHONE:044-25221918
Grams:”Customs”
FX:25220093
GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA
OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CHENNAI
PORT-IMPORTS
CUSTOM HOUSE, NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI -1.
F.No. S.Misc.15/2005 –
Enquiry Dated 23.05.2006
To
Shri.B.Premanad,
Editor & Convenor, Indian Skeptic,
11/7,Chettipalayam Road,Podanur 641 023. Tamil Nadu.
Sub: RTI ACT,
2005– Request for details of Import made by trusts in the name
of Mr.Satya Sai Baba – Reg.
As per Section
8(1) (d) of Right to Information Act 2005, the information sought by you does
not fall within the ambit of the larger Public interest, warranting the
disclosure of such information.
Therefore, we are
unable to consider your request.
Yours faithfully,
(MADHUMOHAN DAMODHAR)
Commissioner Of
Customs
23.5.2006
Copy to
Joint Commissioner of Customs,
O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Sea Imports, Custom House, Chennai – 1.
To
The Central Information
Commission
Old JNU Campus, Block 4, 5th
Floor
New Delhi - 110 007.
Under the Right to
Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack.
due Dated 17.7.2006
Dear Sir,
I will be thankful to
your goodself if you provide me the following
1. Photocopy of the
decision of the Central Public Information Commission under section 8(1)(d) of
the RTI Act 2005 against an appeal filed by one Shri. Ramesh Shetty, Impex
Statistics Services, Mumbai.
2. Also photocopies of
other 2nd appeal decisions by CIC on section 8(1)(d). These are necessary as in
the first appeal of a customs case in Tamilnadu they have quoted your orders
mentioned above to dismiss my 1st appeal without providing me with the copies as
to how he came to the conclusion of dismissing.
I am enclosing herewith
a postal order No. 43E787562 for Rs. 10/- being application fee and I am
prepared to pay the photocopying charges if I am informed how much money I have
to pay.
Please note that postal
order has been accepted as a mode for payment by Notification No.
34012/8(S)/2005-Esst (B) dated 17.5.2006 published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary (GSR) 294E dated 18.5.2006.
Thanking you
Yours Sincerely
(B. Premanand)
2nd Appeal to the Central Chief Information
Commissioner
The Central Information Commission
Block IV,5th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110
067.
14.8.2006
|
1. Name and Address
of the appellant
|
|
B. Premanand,
Indian Skeptic, 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur - 641 023. Tamil nadu
email :
geedeemedi@vsnl.net
|
| |
|
|
|
2. Name and address of the Central Public Information Officer against the
division of whom the appeal is preferred
|
|
Chief Commissioner Of Customs,
Chennai Zone,
Customs House,
Chennai 600 001 (T.N)
|
| |
|
|
|
3. Particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the
appeal is preferred
|
|
Order No.17/2006-CCO- CPIO (Appeals) dated 4.7.2006 File No. CUS.CHENNAI/CCO/Appeals/20/2006.
|
| |
|
|
|
4. Brief facts leading to the appeal
|
|
Separate Sheet
|
| |
|
|
|
5. If the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, the particulars of the
application, including number and date and name and address of the Central
Public Information Officer to whom the application was made
|
|
No
|
| |
|
|
|
6. Prayer or relief
sought
|
|
1.The list of
consignments from Overseas from United States and other countries consigned
to the Trusts floated by Mr.Sathya Sai Baba through Tamilnadu and Andhra
Check Posts.
2.The details of Bill of Lading Consignor, Consignee, Value of
goods, customs duty paid on the above and if the trusts are exempt
from customs duty, the customs duty generally collected and whether all the
goods reached Prasanthinilayam or Bangalore and they can be checked at
SSB’s institutions now.
|
| |
|
|
|
7. grounds for the prayer or relief
|
|
Seperate sheet.
|
| |
|
|
|
8.
verification by the appellant; and
|
|
In
the end
|
| |
|
|
|
9. any other information which the Commission may deem necessary for
deciding the appeal.
|
|
Trusts founded by Mr.Sathya Sai Baba enjoys all exemptions from Sales
Tax, Vat, Excise Duty, Central Excise Duty, Customs Duty Income tax and wealth
tax etc., and financial assistance from States and Central Government refer
(Annexure 14.)
|
I, B. Premanand, aged 76
years, son of Late K.B. Prabhu, residing at 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur -
641 023, affirm that the above details are true and the annexures are photo
copies of the letters sent by me and by the departments.
Signed on 14.8.2006
(B. Premanand)
4. The Annexures to the 2nd Appeal and Brief
Facts relating to the Appeal
Annexure
-1
Letter to the Chief
Commissioner of Customs, 60 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 dated 24.4.2006 sent
by Regd Post Ack due under Postal receipt No.5677 acknowledged on
25.4.2006. requesting to provide me with the following details :-
1.The list of
consignments from overseas from United States and other countries consigned to
the trusts floated by Mr.Sathya Sai Baba through Tamilnadu and Andhra check
post.
2.The details of Bill of
Lading, Consignor, Consignee, value of goods, customs duty paid in the above and
if the trusts are exempt from customs duty the customs duty, generally collected
and whether all the goods reached Prasanthinilayam or Bangalore and they can be
checked at SS B’s institutions now.
Annexure -
2
Letter for the Joint
Commissioner (CCO) No.CUS Chennai/CCO-CPIO/08/06-CCO dated 26.4.2006
received by me on 29.4.2006 transfering my application to the Commissioner
Of Customs (Import) and Commissioner of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai in
terms of section 6 (3) of RTI Act.
Annexure -
3
Letter
F.No.S.Misc.7/2006- RTI Air dated 25.5.2006 posted on 27.5.2006 and received by
me on 29..5.2006 informing me that details sought by me are falling under the ambit of Section 8
(i) (d) of RTI Act - 2005.
That as per
section 8(1) (d) of the said Act, 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 warrant the disclosure of such
information.
Hence, it has been
decided by the CPIO that the information/details sought by me have been exempted
from being provided.
Annexure -
4
My reply dated 30.5.2006
sent by Regd Post Ack due under Postal receipt No.206 and acknowledged on
1.6.2006 informing :
1. Please note that the
instruments, materials etc.,imported by various Satya Sai Baba’s Trusts donot
come under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. They are neither commercial
confidence, trade secrets or intelectual property, but instruments etc.,imported
for use of the Trusts in their hospitals,educational institutions etc., and were
also exempted from Import duty etc., So I have the Right Under RTI Act to know
what was imported by Air and Sea to find out whether they have been used or sold
as import Licenses have been given to the Trusts for purpose of use and
exempted from customs duty.
2. You ought to have
given me the address of the next appellate authority I have to approach under
the RTI Act which you have not done.
3. The
information would not harm the third party/unless rulers he has misused the
exemptions given to them.
4. If you are unable to
give the information sought for kindly let me know the address of the Chief CPIO
to prefer an appeal.
Annexure
-5
Letter from Assistant
Commissioner CAPIO dated 5.6.2006 posted on 6.6.2006 and received by me on
9.6.2006 informing me the address of the Appellate Authority.
Annexure
-6
My appeal to the Chief
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai dated 10.6.2006 sent by Registered post Ack due
under receipt No.449 and the Ack card has not yet been received. Sending a copy
of the letter F No.401/59/2006-CUS III dated 12.4.2006 from the Under Secretary
to The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central
Board Of Customs, New Delhi in para 4 already confirming that some of the
details requested by me in para 3 can be provided by the concerned CPIO of the
Ports /Air Ports where the goods are imports the ground were and the relief
sought were to provide me with the details and documents asked for in any
application dated 24.4.2006.
Annexure
-7
Letter dated
12.4.2006 from the Under Secretary to the Government Of India submitted as
Annexure 4 in the appeal .
Annexure
-8
Receipt for the 1st
Appeal No. Cus. Chennai/ CCO-CPIO (Appeals)/20/06-CCO dated 12.6.2006 received
by me on 17.6.2006.
Annexure -9
Order No.17/2006 - CCO-CPIO-(Appeals dated 4.7.2006 posted on 6.7.2006 and received by me on
7.7.2006.
The appeal was dismissed on
following grounds-
1. Decision of the
Central Public Information Commission against an appeal filed by one Shri Ramesh
Shetty, Impex Statistics Services, Mumbai wherein it was held that the disclosure
of names of the importer/exporter in the daily list has been forbidden by
notification No.128/2004-CUS(NT) dated 19.11.2004 amending the Rule for
Publication of daily lists of Imports and exports which was mandatory provision
for the last 49 years. Government Of India has decided as policy matter that not
to disclose the names of the Importers/exporters on the ground that revealing of
such information would violate commercial confidentiality. Since these
Rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation and have the legal force of
Parliament, exemption from disclosure of information is appropriate under
Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act,2005.
2. The CPIO/Commissioner
of Customs (Imports) has also furnished comments in this regard that the
information was sought by an individual and observed that Ministry of Law and
justice clarified that the expression “Public Interest” means those
interests, which concern the public at large that matter of public interest does
not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity of love of
information or amusement but that in which a class of community have a pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected and that public interest concerns welfare and rights of the community
or a class thereof.
3. The preamble of RTI
Act 2005 his recognised that revelation of certain information is likely to
conflict with other Public interests and need for preservation of confidentiality
of sensitive information such as names of the Importers/exporters. In this
given case, the details sought for pertains to a third party and revealing
such information is exempted in terms of section 8(1) (d) of the above Act.
Disclosing the same would hamper confidentiality and harms the intellectual
property of a third party.
4. In this lights
of the above findings and discussions the details sought for squarely fall
within the perview of section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005 which exempts
providing information relating to a third party unless the competent authority is
satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information. The subject case does not fall under the ambit of the larger
Public interest. Hence the appeal is rejected.
Annexure
-10
My letter dated
17.7.2006 sent by Regd Post Ack due under Postal Receipt No.994 acknowledgement
card dated 18.7.2006. As I was not given copies of the records on which
the appeal was dismissed I asked for the copies of the following
documents.
-
Notification No.128/2004-CUS(NT) dated 19.11.2004.
-
Photo copy of CPIO (Imports) rejecting my application in
letter No.5 Misc15/2005 Enquiry dated 23.5.2006 as both the copies have not been
provided to me, on which the judgment was based.
-
Photocopy of the decision of the Central Public Information Commission
against an appeal filed by one Shri Ramesh Shetty,
-
That as the above 3 documents have not been attached to the
order in 1st appeal mentioned in the 1st para I am not able to file 2nd
appeal as to how you came to the conclusion dismissing my 1st appeal and you
will be liable for the delay.,
12.4.2006 from the Government Of
India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of Excise &
Customs, New Delhi who have already informed me that the information asked for
can be provided to me by the concerned CPIO of the Ports/Air Ports and
dismissed my 1st Appeal quoting documents which are not applicable to my
petition as trusts founded in the name of Mr.Sathya Sai Baba are not
commercial enterprises and do not come under the perview of section 8(1) (d) as
the imports are made where they have been exempted from customs duties and are
for use in their super specialty Hospitals and other charitable
purposes.
Annexure -
11
Letter F.No.Cus/Chennai/CPIO (Appeals)120/26 dated 21.7.2006 the Chief Commissioner Of
Customs, Chennai provided me copies of the 3 documents requested for
1. He had informed me
the Notification No.128/2004-CUS-(NT) dated 19.11.2004 is a freely downloadable
document available in the web site http/ww.cbec.gov.in
2. That letter No.S.Misc, 15/2005- enquiry dated 23.5.2006 of the CPIO / Commissioner of
customs (Imports) rejecting your application is addressed to you by
name.
3. That decision
vide F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00012 dated 10.3.2006 is available in the website
http/cic.gov.in.
The above information No.1 and 3 was
not given in the order in the 1st appeal.
Though No.2 letter might have been
addressed to me the copy was posted to me only on 22.7.2006 and received by me
on 24.7.2006.
Annexure
-12
My letter dated 5.6.2006
by Regd post Ack due postal receipt No.337 acknowledgement card dated 8.6.2006
informing him of the letter dated 26.4.2006 from the Govt. Of India,
Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, The Joint Commissioner
(CCO) No.60 Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai 600 001 that he has
not sent me the appropriate reply and 30 days have already been over under
section 7 of the RTI Act which will lead to a penalty of Rs.250/- for each day
which I would request you to kindly avoid.
That as I have to
file an appeal within 30days if I am not provided with the details and documents
asked for, kindly send them before 15.6.2006 as I have to file an appeal within
30 days from 29.5.2006.
Annexure
-13
Letter dated
17/23.5.2006, F.No.S.Misc,15/2005 enquiry along with photocopy of cover from the
Commissioner of Customs (Imports) posted to me only on 22.7.2006 received by me
on 24.7.2006 informing me as per section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act,2005 the
information sought by me does not fall within the ambit of the larger public
interest warranting the disclosure of such information. Therefore we are
unable to consider your request.
Annexure -
14
-
Memo No.20194/CT-II (i) 2005 dated 29.6.2005.
-
G.O.Ms.No.1282,Revenue (CT-II) 30.6.2005
-
Memo No.42334/CT.II (I) 2005-1 dated 17.11.2005
-
GOM’s No.95, Revenue (CT.II,dated 28.1.2006
-
Memo No.46466/CT.II (1) 2005 dated 4.2.2006
-
Memo Number
46498/CT.II(1)/04-03 dated 6.3.2006.
-
Notification
No.64/88 - CUSTOMS - dated 1.3.1988
-
Letter No.Z-42011/1/2006-MG-1 dated 14.7.2006 received on
24.7.2006 from Director, Engineering
Medical Relief, informing that Directorate
General Of Health Services has withdrawn custom duty exemption granted under 64/88 Cus. Notification
to all institutions except for
-
Ramakrishna Mission Hospital,
Itanagar
-
Maharaj Sawant Singh, Beas Hospital
-
Shankara
Netralaya, Chennai
-
Sri Sathya Sai Hospital, Puttaparthi
I, B. Premanand, aged 76
years, son of Late K.B. Prabhu, residing at 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur-
641 023, affirm and state that all the documents above mentioned are true copies
of the letters sent and received by me.
Signed on 14.8.2006
(B. Premanand)
7. Grounds For
Appeal
Section 8 (1)
(d) “Information including commercial
confidence, Trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which the
competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information”.
2.The trusts founded in
the name of Sathya Sai Baba are not commercial enterprises but registered as
public charitable trusts and so do not attract section 8 (1) (d).
3.Unlike Commercial
Enterprises, these trusts are exempt from all taxes including Sales Tax, Excise
Duty, Income Tax or Wealth Tax etc. They are also given grants by the State
and Central Governments.
4.“Commercial” means to
exploit, do, or make mainly for financial gains, buying and selling
goods.
5.There cannot be any
commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property in the functioning
of these trusts as they are charitable and not a commercial endeavour.
6.The disclosure
will not harm these trusts as they are not competitive in nature but would be
helpful to others to start such charitable work. These charitable work is
neither commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property as these
trusts are not commercial enterprises run for any gain as the trusts are fully
charitable in nature and not a business for profit. Nor would it harm the
competitive position of a third party because these trusts are not competitive.
7.The information
sought for will not harm the trusts unless they have misused the exemptions
given to them.
8.The imported
materials can only be used for their charitable projects and not sold (Annexure
14).
9.The trusts have
no trade mark, patent or copy right registered on the imported materials.
10.The CPIO has not
acted according to section 11 nor contacted the trusts before coming to the
conclusion that the matter comes under section 8 (1) (d).
11.The CAPIO has not
explained how he came to the decision in his order dated 25.5.2006
(Annexure 3) The Under Secretary to
the Govt. Of India, Ministry of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of
Customs, New Delhi in para 4 has already confirmed that some of the details
required by me as above as permissable under RTI Act can be provided by the
concerned CPIO of the ports/Air Ports where the goods are imported.
i) The details mentioned
by him in para 3 are of consignments from overseas especially from United States
Consigned to Sai Baba Trusts through Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh Check Posts
and
ii) The details of Bill
of Lading, Consignor, value of goods, customs duty paid on the
above.
12. I have not been
informed of the letter dated 23.5.2006 from the CPIO (Sea Port) nor was given an
opportunity to express my side before the 1st Appellate Authority passed
orders.
13.The main part of the
discussion of the 1st Appellate Authority was based on Notification No.128/2004.
CUS (NT) dated 19.11.2004 and the decision of the Central Public Information
Commission in Appeal No.09/ic(A) 2006: F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00012 dated 10.3.2006
wherein the appellant Mr.Ramesh Shetty, Impex Statistics Services against the
order No.VIII/CAPIO/02/05/21755 dated 20.12.2005 passed by the Chief
Commissioner of Customs (DZ). Appellate Authority wherein the appellant request
for disclosing the name of importer/exporter in the daily list of import and
export which are being published from the customs house.
In this case the
appellant and the respondent were commercial enterprises and what he wanted were
the names and address of the importers / exporters who are both commercial
enterprises.
14. But what I have
sought of is the import by charitable Trusts founded by Mr.Sathya Sai Baba and
these trusts have no commercial interest on the import export but for charitable
work in their free hospitals, educational institutions and charitable work of
supplying free water to the public etc., which will not violate commercial
confidentiality.
15. The 1st Appellate Authority has
quoted the Preamble of the RTI Act 2005 which is as follows as found in the bare
act
The Right To Information Act, 2005
(Act No. 22 of 2005)
An Act to provide
for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to
secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order
to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority, the constitution of Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.
WHEREAS the
Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy
requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital
to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and
their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS
revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with
other public interests including efficient operations of the
Governments, optimum use of
limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information;
AND
WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while
preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;
NOW
THEREFORE it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to
citizens who desire to have it;
Be it
enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as
follows :-
The para marked with green ink is
not there in the preamble and he has left the following para
AND WHEREAS it is
necessary to harmonise those conflicting interests while preserving the
paramountcy of the democratic ideal.
16.The RTI Act No.22 of
2005 has very clearly stated which is information, and what information
can be furnished to citizens who desire to have it.
Section 2
Definitions “Information” means any
material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars,
orders, logbooks, contract, reports, papers, samples, models, data materials,
held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which
can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in
force.
Section 4
(xviii) Particulars of recipients
of concessions, permits or authorisation granted by it.
Section 8 (f) Provided that the information which cannot be
denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any
person
Section 9
Grounds for rejection to access in certain
cases without prejudice to the provisions of sec.8, a Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, may reject a
request for information where such a request for providing access would involve
an infringement of copy right subsisting in a person other than the
State.
Section 19
(5) In any appeal proceedings the onus to
prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be who
denied the request
The Central
Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be, shall
give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal to the complainant
and the public authority.
Section 22 Act to
have overriding effect
The provisions of this Act shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent there with contained in the
Official Secrets Act, 1923(19 of 1923) and any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this
Act.
I, B. Premanand, aged 76
years, son of Late K.B. Prabhu, residing at 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur -
641 023, do hereby affirm and that the above grounds are true.
Signed on 14.8.2006
(B. Premanand)
F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00614
Central Information Commission
Block No.IV,(5th Floor)
OLD JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
Dated:02/09/2006
To,
1. The Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Central Public Information
Officer,
60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai zone, Customs
House,
Chennai-600001, (T.N.)
2. Shri J.K Batra,
Chief Commissioner of Customs &
Appellate Authority,
Office of the Chief Commissioner of
Customs,
Customs House, Chennai-600001.
Subject: Comments on Appeal/Complaint Under
Section 18/9 Right to Information Act,2005.
Sir,
The Commission has
received an Appeal/a Complaint Dated 21/08/2006 from Smt/Shri B
Premanand,Indian Skeptic,117,Chettipalayam
Road,Podanur-641023.(Tamilnadu) (Copy
enclosed).
2. You are requested to
offer your comments on this Complaint/Appeal to the Commission within fifteen
(15) working days from the date of issue of this letter failing which the matter
would be decided ex-parte.
3. A Copy of the
Comments should also be furnished to the Appellant, so as to enable him to file rejoinder, if any.
(L.C.Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Encl: A Copy of
Appeal/Complaint
Copy To: Smt/Shri B Premanand, Indian Skeptic, 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur:-
641023.(Tamilnadu)
For information: He is requested to file his
comments if any, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of comments
from the respondents.
(L.C.Singhi)
Additional
Registrar
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
NO.60 RAJAJI
SALAI,
CUSTOM HOUSE, CHENNAI – 600 001.
CUS CHENNAI/-
CCO-CPIO(APPEALS)20/2006-CCO
Dated
13.09.2006
To
Shri L.C. Singhi,
Additional Registrar,
Central Information Commission,
Block No.IV (5th Floor), Old JNU Campus,
NEW DELHI 110 067.
Sir,
Sub: RTI,2005 -Comments on Appeal/Complaint under Section 18/19 of Right to Information
Act,2005-reg.
Please refer to your letter F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00614 dated 02/04/09/2006
on the above subject.
2. Comments on the grounds of appeal filed by Shri B.Premanand, Indian
Skeptic,11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur is enclosed herewith as
desired.
Yours faithfully,
(J.K.BATRA)
Copy
to:
CHIEF COMMISSIONER
Shri B.Premanand, Indian Skeptic, 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanure 641 023- With
copy of Comments
PARAWISE COMMENTS ON
THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL IN THE SECOND APPEAL FILED BY SHRI B. PREMANAND,
M/s.INDIAN SKEPTIC, PODANUR BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER
SECTIONS 18/19 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005.
1. No
comments.
2. RTI Act, 2005,Section
8(1)(d) exempts from providing 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.
In the customs parlance, Shri Sathya Saibaba Trust is an importer like any other and therefore they
cannot be extended any differential treatment. The Customs Act, does not
recognize ‘Charitable Trusts’ as a separate entity for the purpose of taxation
(though under the Income Tax Act, ‘Charitable Trusts’ are recognized as
separate entities for the purpose of taxation). The Customs Act, 1962 defines
import and export as activity falling within the scope of Customs and importer
and exporter as persons falling within the scope of Customs enforcement. In
the context of Customs Act, and as for as Customs is concerned, Shri Sathya
Saibaba Trust, being an importer, can be considered as involving in commercial
activity in a limited sense. The argument that, Shri Sathya Saibaba
Trust is not a commercial enterprise and hence Sec 8(1) (d) does not apply is
not well taken. This is because, firstly, the word ‘commercial enterprise’
is alien to section 8(1) (d); secondly, ‘commercial confidence’ is the
actual phrase used in Section 8(1) (d) as an enabling context for exemption
from the Right to Information. Any transaction, in particular, import and
export in the context of international trade involves ‘commercial confidence’
and hence disclosing the particulars of such a transaction may adversely
impact the very transaction. Shri Sathya Saibaba Trust being an importer
under the Customs Act, information about and record of their import
transactions fall well within the scope and meaning of the term ‘commercial
confidence’ and hence the same cannot be disclosed (disclosure may affect the
transaction and the importer) unless and otherwise it is clearly brought out
by the applicant that larger public interest warrants such disclosure.
In the given application seeking particulars of commercial or say import
transactions of Shri Sathya Saibaba Trust, which clearly involves ‘commercial
confidence’, the larger public interest warranting the disclosure has not been
clearly brought out. To be precise, section 8(1)(d) makes disclosure of
information relating to ‘commercial confidence’, purely conditional and not
mandatory. The condition being that, the larger public
interest warranting the disclosure must be
clearly established by the applicant while seeking information pertaining to a
matter involving ‘ commercial confidence’.
3. Exemption of Sales Tax,
Excise Duty, Income Tax or Wealth Tax to Trusts has no relevance to the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and there is no provision in the above Act that information
pertaining to a party/person should be freely furnished to anyone, if they enjoy
exemption from taxes/duties.
4. As explained
elsewhere, in a limited sense, as an importer under the Customs Act, Shri Sathya
Saibaba Trust involves in commercial activity and their import transactions
involve ‘commercial confidence’.
5 to 7 Government of India, Ministry
of Finance in its Notification No.128/2004-CUS(NT) dated 19.11.2004 amended the
Rule for Publication of Daily Lists of Imports and Exports and decided as a
matter of policy not to disclose the names of the Importers/Exporters and there
is no specific exemption to disclose the names of the Charitable Trusts.
Copy of the above Notification is enclosed as Annexure ‘A’.
8 & 9. Appellant says, the
materials imported by Shri Sathya Sai baba Trust cannot be sold and they do not
have any intellectual property right, and hence Section 8(1)(d) exemption does
not apply. This issue has already been explained and it is reiterated that
unless larger public interest warranting the disclosure is clearly established
by the applicant, information involving ‘commercial confidence’ cannot be
disclosed. In his application, the applicant has not brought out any
specific instance of misuse of materials imported by the Shri Sathya Saibaba
Trust under duty exemptions. If the appellant makes any specific
allegations separately about any unlawful imports or misuse of materials
imported under duty exemptions, against the Shri Sathya Sai Baba Trust, in the
normal course, such allegations would be taken up for investigation, by the
department, after ascertaining the merits.
10. According to Section 11(1)
of the Right to Information Act, only when the competent authority intends to
disclose information about a third party (requested by the second party), he/she
needs to contact the third party and give them opportunity to represent their
views. Since larger public interest warranting the disclosure of
information involving ‘commercial confidence’ was not clearly established by the
applicant, a view had been taken that the information called for would come
under exemption from disclosure provided in Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, and
hence the question of inviting the third party to make a representation did not
arise.
11. The appellant claimed by
quoting Ministry’s letter F.No.401/59/2006-CUS III dt. 12.4.2006 that some of
the details required by the appellant can be provided by the concerned Central
Public Information Officers of the Ports/Airports where the goods were imported,
as permissible under the RTI Act. Ministry’s letter was in the nature of a
general forwarding letter and hence cannot be cited in support of the
application seeking information. Under the Right to Information Act, onus
is on the competent authority, i.e. the CPIO to decide whether the sought after
information should be supplied to the applicant. Moreover, Section 8(1)
(d) of the Act does not permit disclosure of information pertaining to a third
party involving commercial confidence unless the competent authority is
satisfied that larger public interest warranting disclosure of information is
clearly established.
12. The letter dated 23.05.2006
referred by the appellant is the decision of the Commissioner (Imports)/CPIO
denying the information requested for, under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI
Act,2005, and a copy of the same was received in the office of the Chief
Commissioner 24.05.2006 for record. The decision of the CPIO dated
23.05.2006 was discussed by the
Appellate Authority in his order and a copy of the same was also sent to the
Appellate Authority. The appellant did not request before the first
appellate authority for a hearing, and such a hearing to the Appellant is not
mandatory under the Act. Hearing is provided for under the Act, only at
the level of second appellate authority, to the third party.
13 & 14. The first appellate
authority relied on the Ministry’s Notification No.128/2004-Cus(NT)
dt.19.11.2004 and also the decision of the Central Public Information Commission
is an appeal filed by one Shri Ramesh Shetty, M/s. Impex Statistics, since the
same clearly establish the privilege of the department to withhold information
relating to imports, on certain grounds. IT is true that Customs is in
possession of a large database on imports and exports generated in the course of
its enforcement activity, but excerpts from or contents of the import-export
database cannot be freely disclosed without restraint. To be precise,
Customs is governed by disclosure norms which even predate the Right to
Information Act. What can be disclosed by Customs, as for as import-export
activity is concerned, is clearly laid out in Notification No.128/2004-CUS(NT)
dt.19.11.2004 amending the Rule for Publication of Daily Lists of Imports and
Exports. In the matter of Shri Ramesh Shetty of M/s.Impex Statistics, the
Central Information Commission, recognized the disclosure norms followed by
Customs as for as imports/exports are concerned, by saying that, the limited
disclosure followed by Customs (in the form of Rules for publication of Daily
Lists) is in the nature of subordinate legislation and have the legal force of
Parliament. This decision of the Central Information Commission was relied upon
by the first appellate authority in his order upholding the denial of
information to the applicant about the import-export activity of Shri Sathya
Saibaba Trusts. IF specific names of importers-exporters cannot be disclosed in
the Daily List, by virtue of Rules in the nature of subordinate legislation (a
fact recognized by the Central Information Commission), so also import-export
details pertaining to a specific importer-exporter.
15. The Preamble of the Right
to Information Act was discussed by the first appellate authority in his
order, to bring out the point that Right to Information Act clearly recognizes
the consequences of unrestrained disclosure. In its preamble, the Act
recognized that revelation of certain information is likely to conflict with
other public interests including preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information. The list/names of importers-exports with their record of
activity constitutes one such sensitive information, which cannot be disclosed
freely. Unless the larger public interest warranting the disclosure is
clearly established, importer specific information about commercial activity
cannot be supplied, contravening the binding Rules, which are in the nature of
subordinate legislation and have the legal force of Parliament.
Thus
the information sought by the appellant about import-export activity of Shri
Sathya Saibaba Trusts falls squarely under the exemption provided under Section
8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act,2005 and therefore Sections
2,4(xviii),8(f),9,19(5) and 22 of the Act referred by the appellant need not be
applied to the subject case.
To,
The Addl Registrar,
Central Information Commission,
Block No.IV,(5th Floor),
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110
067
Under the Right to Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack.
Due Dated 18.9.2006
Dear sir,
a) I refer to the copy
of your letter F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00614 dated 2/4.9.2006 sent by ordinary post
and received by me on 9.9.2006.
b) I am wondering
whether you are prejudiced against me which you have given 15 working days from
the date of issue of this letter failing which the matter would be decided exparte.
c) While you have allowed me only 7 days from the date of
receipt of comments from the respondents to file my comments.
d) You have not explained whether you have to receive my
comments within 7 days or it is posted within 7 days as I don’t control the
India Post Offices and I cannot be held responsible for their delay in
delivering my comments. Unless I fly to Delhi to file my comments within 7 days
which is impossible as I am a middle class person.
e) I have received the
comments made by the Chief Commissioner, Government Of India, Ministry of
Finance, office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, No.60 Rajaji Salai, Custom
House, Chennai 600 001 along with his letter
No.Cus.Chennai/-CCC-CPIO-(Appeals)/20/2006-CCo dated 13.9.2006 posted on
14.9.2006 and received by me on 16.9.2006. The copy of the comments made
by him has not been signed by him. So I cannot accept it. Still I am giving my
comments.
My Comments
No.1 The respondent has accepted that section 8(1) (d) is the
copy of the section by not commenting.
No.2 The section 8 (1)
(d) quoted by the respondent is the true copy from the RTI Act.
Section 22 reads as
follows :-
22. Act to have
overriding effect:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect not
withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the official
secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or
in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Unless this section is
amended the argument in para 2 does not hold. I shall comment sentence by
sentence.
Sentence No.1
Shri Sathya Sai Baba
Trusts are not an importer like any other and has to be extended differential
treatments, because these trusts have imported instruments and materials under
Notification No.64/89-Customs - dated 1.3.1988 and have been exempted from
Customs duty while the other importers import for commercial purposes paying
customs duty (Annexure 1).
The Director, Emergency
Medical Relief, Director General Of Health Services (Medical General-1) by his
letter No.2-42011/1/2006 - MG-1 dated 14.7.2006 has confirmed under 5 (d) that
Director General Of Health Services has withdrawn customs duty, exemption
granted under 64/88 Cus.Notification to all institutions except for (i)
Ramakrishna Mission Hospital,Itanagar (ii) Maharaj Savant Singh, Beas
Hospital, (iii) Shankara Netralaya, Chennai and (iv) Sri Satya Sai
Hospital, Puttaparthi (copy of the letter filed as Annexure 2)
Sentence No.2.
The customs department has
recognised Satya Sai Baba’s trusts as separate entity
for purpose of customs duty which
fact the respondent has suppressed.
Sentence No.3
As the RTI Act under
Section 22 overrides all other Acts or in any other instruments, the comments of
the respondent does not stand.
Sentence No.4
This is an
interpretation given by the respondent. Satya Sai Baba Trust, being an importer,
cannot be considered as involving in commercial activity even in limited
sense.
Sentence No.5,6,7,8 &
9
Annexure 3 is the copy
of one application dated 17.2.1992 to the National Committee for Promotion
of Social & Economic Welfare, Department of Revenue, Government Of India,
North Block 110 011 and Annexure 4 is the Notification S.O.244 (E) accepting as
a eligible project for the purposes of section 35 AC proves beyond doubt that
these trusts are not commercial in nature but public charitable trusts to give
free medical care for rural public irrespective of caste, creed and colour. The trust also affirms that no benefit from the project or scheme will accrue to
the persons managing the trust. All the imported instruments and materials
are also gifts from overseas for use in the projects and schemes of the SSB
Trusts. There are innumerable applications and orders of the Government Of
India which if I have to send as annexures will cost me a fortune; If ordered I
can bring them when the 2nd Appeal is taken up for under Section 19 (9) and
(10).
The word “Commercial
Enterprises” though not used in section 8(1) (d) the words in the section
“Commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property” will lead
to the question as to what are the above words pointing to except “Commercial
enterprises”.
The imports by the SSB
trusts does not involve International Trade (Dictionary meaning “the business of
buying and selling) as they are for giving free medical treatment (annexure 1,2
and 3) and so disclosing the particulars of such transactions by SSB trusts will
not have adverse impact on the very transaction and so does not come under the
meaning of the term “Commercial confidence” and so should be disclosed (as the
disclosure does not affect the transaction and the importer and to give
information on SSB trust there is no question of larger public interest to
warrant the disclosure. When the disclosure of the information does not
come under “commercial confidence” as they are neither commercial confidence nor
trade secrets nor intellectual property and so the disclosure are not
conditional but mandatory. As the imports by SSB trusts does not involve
commercial confidence, trade secrets or are intellectual property there is no
need to establish public interest. While rejecting my application he has
to prove that the imports by SSB Trusts are commercial confidence, Trade
secrets or are intellectual property as the onus to prove that a denial of a
request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request
under section 19 (5). The respondent has utterly failed in his argument.
No.3
The respondent has steathily
supressed the words “exempt from all taxes” and “etc”as all taxes and “etc” means
“customs duty” also and has much
relevance to the RTI Act Section 8(1) (d) as
these exemptions prove that SSB trusts do not come under the meaning of
Commercial confidence, Trade secrets or intellectual property nor under section
9 as the imports do not involve an infringement of copy right subsisting in a
person other than the state. The respondent has again suppressed section 2 (f)
which is as follows:-
“Information” means any
material in any form, including records, documents, Memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books,
contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic
form and information relating to any private body which can be assessed by a
public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Section 3.
Right to
information :- Subject to the provision of this Act, all Citizens shall
have the right to information.
The exempted category is
in section 8 and the respondent has not taken up in this case other sub sections
except section 8 (i) (d) in which the information on SSB trust does not fall as
the imports are not commercial confidence, Trade secrets or intellectual
property.
Section 4
Obligations of Public Authorities
Section 4 (b) (xiii)
particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by
it.
Explanation - For the
purpose of sub sections (3) and (4) “disseminated” means making known or
communicated the information to the public through notice boards, books, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcastings the internet
or any other means including inspection of offices of any public
authority.
Section 8(j)
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to
the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Section 11
(i)
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets
protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure
outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such
third party.
No.4
Even in a limited sense
as an importer under the customs Act, the SSB trusts do not involve in commercial
activity and their import transactions does not involve “Commercial
Confidence”.
No.5 to
7
Notification No.128/2004
- Cust (NT dated 19.11.2004) is superceded by section 22 of the RTI Act and the
RTI Act has an overriding effect - and so has no connection with the RTI Act and
the respondent has no right to refuse information and documents under sections
of the RTI Act mentioned in No.3.
No.8 &
9
Under section 6 (2) and
applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any
reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those
that may be necessary for contacting
him. It
is a fact that when the SSB trusts cannot sell the
imported materials, section 8 (i) (d) cannot apply to
the Trust. There is no need to establish larger public interest warranting the
disclosure as the imported materials are not for commercial purposes and not for
sale. There is no need for the applicant to bring forth any specific
instances of materials imported by SSB Trusts and the respondent himself has
confirmed they are under customs Duty exemptions.
No.10.
The petitioner has
clearly established that the SSB trusts donot come under section 8(i) (d).
If the respondents thinks the SSB trusts come under third party he ought to have
acted according to section ii (i).
No.11.
The interpretation given
by the respondent that the ministry’s letter was in a nature of a general
forwarding letter. It is not so. The ministry has confirmed in para 3 of
their letter dated 12.4.2006 that I require the following
information.
(i) List of consignments
from overseas especially from united states consigned to Sai Baba Trust through
Tamilnadu and Andra Pradesh Check Posts.
(ii) The details of Bill
of Lading, Consignor, Value of Goods, Customs Duty paid on the above.
And the Ministry has
very clearly stated that “In this regard, it is informed that some of the
details required by you as above as permissible under the RTI Act can be
provided by the concerned CPIO of Ports/Air Ports where the goods are
imported.
The word used is not
“may” but “can” and he confirms that (i) and (ii) mentioned in para 3 of his
letter as permissible under RTI Act. So the comments of the respondent is not
true. He has also changed the words to make it look as a general
forwarding letter. When the ministry sent me the above letter, they have
found that the matter does not come under section 8(i) (d) involving commercial
confidence as it needed the satisfaction of the competent authority that public
interest warranting disclosure of information is clearly established. The
very fact that the ministry didn’t ask me to establish anything proves that the
section 8(i) (d) was thought of later under pressure from the Higher
ups.
12. When an order is
passed it is necessary to provide the petitioner the records of the documents to
know whether the order was justifiable and it is mandatory to attach the
documents along with the order. The appellate Authority before passing
orders ought to have sent the documents to the petitioner asking for his
remarks. It is not necessary on the part of the petitioner to make any
request and the petitions has not asked for a hearing, though it is allowed by
other 1st Appellate Authorities as they want their orders to be according to law
and justice. As a proof I am attaching herewith a letter dated 15.9.2006
from the 1st Appellate Authority asking for explanation for 5 days delay in
filing the 1st Appeal at the time of hearing. (Annexure 5). If he had not sent
this notice his decision would have been on wrong calculations and would have
led to the 2nd Appeal bringing heavy loss to the appellant.
Unless the respondent
requests the petitioner to send his comments on the Ministry’s Notification
No.128/2004-Cus (NT) dated 19.11.2004 on the basis of which my petition would be
dismissed if the reply is not satisfactory as I do not have occult powers I
cannot respond.
The respondent went
wrong in applying the decision of the CIC
upholding denial of information to commercial
enterprises when SSB Trusts were not commercial in nature and the CIC was
correct in upholding denial of information under section 8(i) (d) to the
petitioner as he as well as the respondent were commercial
enterprises.
No.13&14
I have already explained
in my grounds in the 2nd appeal that the notification dated 19.11.2004 amending
the rules for publication of daily lists of import and exports though it is in
nature of subordinate legislation and have the legal force of Parliament.
It is applicable only to the appellant and respondents who come under section 8
(i) (d) exemptions and not SSB trusts who do not come under section 8(1)
(d) so the first appellate authority went against RTI Act - 2005 by
relying on an order by the CIC who come under section 8 (i) (d). The decision of
the CIC vide F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00012 dated 10.2.2006 is as follows :-
“Disclosure of the
names of the importer / exporter in the daily list has been forbidden by
Notifications No.128/2004-Cus(NT) Dated 19.11.2004, amending the
rule for publication of daily lists of imports and exports, which was
mandatory provision for the last 49 years. Since, the
rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation and have the legal force of
parliament, hence exempt from disclosure of information is appropriate under
section 8 (d) of the RTI Act.
As SSB Trusts do not come
under the exemption category under section 8(1) (d) because they are exempt from
Customs duty and the imports can only be used to give free treatment in their
hospital under Annexure 1 and 2 and received as donations under Annexure
3
15. The 1st Appellate
Authority has failed to bring out the point that Right to Information Act
clearly recognises the consequences of unrestrained disclosure. Though preamble
is as follows :-
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a
Central Information Commission and State Information Commission and for matters
connected there with or incidental thereto and the words used by the respondent
is not complete and it is.
“And whereas democracy
requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital
to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and
their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;”
“And whereas revelation
of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public
interests including efficient operations of the government. Optimum use of
limited fiscal resource and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information;”
And whereas it is
necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the
paramountcy of the democratic ideal”;
“Now, therefore it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire
to have it.”
The public interests are exempted from RTI Act
under section 8 and all other information should be
provided to the citizens which has been elaborated
in sections 2(f),3,4,8j,11 and 22.
Though the list/names of importers - exporters with their activity constitution
one such sensitive information, the SSB trusts do not come under this category as
they are exempted from customs duty and the imported materials are not for sale
or business purpose while all other import /exports are for commercial purpose
for sale or purchase for sale in India or for use in manufacture of
finished products for sale.
So the information
sought by me about the import export activity of SSB trusts which are exempted
from customs duty being not of commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property will not harm the competitive position of a third party
as it does not come under section 8(i) (d). and sections mentioned earlier of
the Act should be applied to the subject case.
I sincerely pray
that my comments on the comments of the 1st appellate authority be accepted as
it is humanly not possible to file it within 7 days of receipt of the comments
from the 1st Authority for a middle class citizen of India. As the comments from
the respondent from Chennai took 4 days to receive by post on 16.9.2006
and 17th was a holiday being Sunday and the computer person was not available
and I am posting my comments on 18th though I had to work for 18 hours on 16th
and 17th to draft the comments and to get it typed on 18th today and post I am
passed 76 and have eye problems and pain in the vertibrae which cracked two
years ago and though the crack is healed, I get pain if I stand and sit for more
than a hour.
I, B. Premanand,
aged 76 years, son of Late K.B. Prabhu, residing at
11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur 641 023, affirm that
the sections mentioned and documents, annexure are true xerox copies provided to
me by different ministries and departments under RTI Act.
Thanking you,
Signed on 18.9.2006
(B. Premanand).
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOM
HOUSE,
60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 001.
F.NO.CUS-CHENNAI/
CCO-CPIO(APPEALS)20/06-CCO Dated 21.09.2006
To
Shri L.C.Singhi,
Additional Registrar,
Central Information Commission,
Block No.IV(5th Floor),OLD JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110 0067.
Sir,
Sub: RTI,2005 -Comments on Appeal/Complaint under Sections 18/19 of Right to Information
Act,2005-reg.
Please refer to your
letter F.No.CIC/MA/A2006/00614 dated 2/4.9.2006 on the above subject.
Vide the said letter, the Addl.
Registrar had called for comments from the Chief Commissioner of
Customs/CPIO (Sl.no.1) and also Chief Commissioner of Customs & Appellate Authority
(Sl.no.2).
Comments on the grounds
of appeal filed by Shri B. Premanand of Indian Skeptic has been already furnished
by the Chief Commissioner of Customs under the cover of the letter
addressed to the Addl. Regisrtar, CIC, bearing even number dated 13.09.,2006, a
copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant Shri Premanand.
Since the Chief Commissioner of Customs has already furnished
comments in his capacity as Appellate Authority (sl.no.2)separate comments are
not furnished in his executive capacity as Chief Commissioner (Sl.no.1) Comments
on the appeal furnished in his capacity as Appellate Authority (Sl.no.2) and
comments on the appeal furnished in his executive capacity as Chief Commissioner
(sl.no.1) are one and the same.
For ready reference, a copy of the comments forwarded earlier
by the Chief Commissioner as Appellate Authority is enclosed.
Yours
faithfully,
(J.M.KENNEDY)
JOINT COMMISSIONER(CCO)/CPIO
21.9.2006
Encl:as
above
Shri B.Premanand, Indian Skeptic, 11/7,Chettipalayam
Road, Podanure 641 023 Tamilnadu.
To,
The Addl. Registrar,
Central Information
Commission,
Block IV,5th Floor, Old JNU
Campus, New Delhi-110 067.
Under the
Right to Information Act - 2005.
Regd. Post Ack. due dated
25.9.2006
Dear sir,
Ref: Copy of your letter F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00614 dated 2/4.9.2006 sent to me by ordinary post and
received by me on 9.9.2006.
I am giving below my
comments on the 2nd letter F.No.Cus.Chennai/CCO-CPIO (APPEAL) 20/26-CCO dated
21.9.2006 received by me on 23.9.2006 from Joint Commissioner (CCO) CPIO to you
and copied to me.
I am giving below my comments on the above comments:-
1. My application
under RTI Act 2005 dated 24.4.2006 was addressed to The Chief Commissioner of
Customs, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 TN.
2. By letter No.CUS
CHENNAI/CCO-CPIO/08/06-CCO dated 26.4.2006 I was informed that my application
has been transferred to the Commissioner of Customs (import) and Commissioner of
Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai 600 001.
3. Assistant
Commissioner (CPIO) (AIRPORT) Chennai 600 027 passed orders on my application
and gave me the address of the 1st Appellate Authority by his letter dated
5.6.2006.
4. The orders on 1st
Appeal was passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600
001 by his order No.17/2006-CCO-CPIO(APPEALS).
Therefore the Joint
Commissioner (CCO)/CPIO, O/o. The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Rajaji
Salai, Chennai 600 001 is wrong to say that Chief CCC as Appellate Authority and
as executive capacity is one and the same. As the CAPIO who passed the 1st order
on my application was Assistant Commissioner (APIO) (AIRPORT) and not CCC. though
it was decided by
CCC(CPIO),
5. If it was decided by
CCC CPIO, he has no authority to accept my 1st Appeal and he ought to have sent
it to the 1st Appellate Authority who was senior to him.
Here also the copy of the order is not attested or signed by
the Appellate Authority.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
(B. Premanand).
F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00614
Central Information Commission
Block No.IV,(5th Floor)
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
Dated:09/10/2006; Posted on 19-10-2006
To,
1. Shri J M Kennedy,
Joint Commissioner (CCO) & CPIO,
Ministry of Finance,
Office of the Chief Commissioner of
Customs,
Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001
2. Shri J.K Batra,
Chief Commissioner of Customs &
Appellate Authority,
Office of the Chief Commissioner of
Customs,
Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001.
Subject: Notice for hearing on appeal submitted by
Shri B.Premanand, Indian
Skeptic, 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Padanur-641023(T.N.)
Sir,
I am directed to inform you that the aforesaid case has been
listed for hearing on October 30,2006 at 03.00 P.M. in the Court Room of the
Commission and that you have been directed to appear with all relevant
documents. In the event of your failure to appear and or to produce
relevant documents the Commission shall pass ex-parte order.
2. Third party, if any, may also be informed and served a copy
of this notice so as to enable him/her to defend or present
his/her viewpoint in the matter during the hearing.
(L.C.Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Copy
to
1.Shri B Premanand,Indian Skeptic,11/7,Chettipalayam Road,
Podanur:- 641023.(T.N.) for information: You may at your discretion be
present in person or through your duly authorized representative or may opt not
to be present for the hearing.
2. PPS to IC(A)
(L.C.Singhi)
To
The Additional Registrar,
Central Information Commission,
Block No. IV (5th Floor)Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067.
Under the Right to Information Act - 2005.
Regd.
Post Ack. due Dated 23.10.2006
Dear sir,
1)Ref: F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00614 dated 9.10.2006 received by me on 20.10.2006 Notice for
appearance on 30.10.2006 at 3 p.m.
2) Though I was very
much agitated by the way the PIO’s and the 1st Appellate Authorities were
passing orders in many of my applications controvening RTI Act-2005 I am now
quite happy as I find that the State Information Commissions and Central
Information Commission are passing orders according to law and justice as I went
through all the orders passed from January 2006 to October 19,2006 which some of
my friends had unloaded from the internet and I find that the proper functioning
of the RTI Act is in able hands except that it has not reached the below poverty
line.
3) I am very confident that I will get justice from the
Commission and even if there are factual mistakes in the orders passed, one can
opt for review.
4) Under the
circumstances I am using my discretion not to be present in person and I do not
have any authorised representatives to be present as the appeal documents are
very clear and the order F.No.402/9/2005-ITCC dated 29.11.2005 of the Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes is on the
information in respect of Tax payers and not on information where the
institutions are exempted from all taxes including Customs Duty and an Indian
Citizen has the right to know as the SSB trusts claim to be fully charitable and
claim exemption from payment of tax cannot be treated in the category of tax
payers because of the tax exemptions by the State and Central Governments,
burden of additional tax falls on the citizens of India and they have a right to
know that these charitable trusts do not misuse the exemptions given to them at
the cost of the general public.
Thanking
you,
Yours Sincerely,
(B. Premanand).
Urgent/RTI reply - By speed post
F.No.401/59/2006-Cus.III
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of
Excise & Customs
New Delhi, the 12th April,2006.
Subject: Request for information
under RTI Act,2005 – reg.
The undersigned is
directed to refer to your request application for providing information on list
of consignments including bill of lading, value and customs duty, as detailed in
your letter reference dated 5.4.2006 received in this office on 7th April,
2006.
2. In this regard you may kindly
note that in terms of Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules,
2005, it has been laid down that a request for obtaining information under RTI
Act, 2005 shall be accompanied by an application fee of rupees ten by way
of cash against proper receipt of by demand draft or bankers cheque in
favour of Section Officer (Cash), Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance. As the mode of
payment is not in the above form, the postal order for Rs.10/- bearing serial
No.33E 101860 is returned to you. However, in exercise of the discretion
given to the CPIO the following information is provided to you.
3. The matter was examined. From the above said
application it is seen that you require following information
(i) list of consignments
from overseas especially from United States consigned to Sai Baba Trust through
Tamil Nadu and Andhra Check posts and
(ii) the details of bill of lading, consignor, value of goods,
customs duty paid on the above.
4.In this regard, it is
informed that some of the details required by you as above as permissible under
the RTI Act can be provided by the concerned Central Public Information Officers
(CPIO) of the Ports/Air Ports where the goods are imported. It is also
informed that the nodal agency of the Government of India responsible for
collection, compilation and dissemination of trade statistics including daily
trade returns (DTR) on imports is the Directorate General of Commercial
intelligence and Statistics. Collection and dissemination of commercial
information to the commercial public as well as to the government and
semi-government organizations have been among the principal services offered by
the above said Directorate. Hence the information as required by you can
be provided by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001.
5.The information
regarding the list of Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs)/Central
Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIOs) appointed under Section 5(1) of
Right to Information Act 2005, on various field formations of customs is
available in the departmental website http://www.cbec.gov.in/.
6. Similarly the
information regarding the list of Public Information Officers (PIOs) in the
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics is available at
the website of Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics @
http://www.dgciskol.nic.in/ and http://www.dgciskol.nic.in/rti main.htm. A list of CPIOs for
your request is also enclosed for your immediate reference.
Yours faithfully,
(Aseem Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Ph:23095541
Encl:as
above
To
Shri Premanand, Editor & Convener, 11/7,Chettipalayam Road, Podanur, Tamil Nadu – 641 023.
No.Z-42011/1/2006-MG-I
Directorate General of Health Services
(Medical General -I) Nirman Bhawan,New
Delhi
Shri Premanand, 11/7, Chettipalayam Road, Podanur - 6410243 TAMILNADU (INDIA)
Sir,
Please refer to your request dated 15.5.2006 seeking
information under Right to Information Act,2005 on the medical equipment scam
and the letter No.Z-17025.2.2006-RTI dated 11th July,2006 written by Director
General of Health Services (copy enclosed).
Your queries, point-wise
has been examined and I am to inform you the following:
1. The Rosha Committee
constituted by Delhi High Court which investigated the alleged scam, submitted
its report to Delhi High Court, and as such not available with
Dte.GHS.
2&3 The details of persons who have misused the exemption and
the investigation report of special task force would be available in the
Ministry of Finance and you have to approach that ministry under the said Act
for such purpose.
4. Regarding copy of the
intelligence report indicating the Former Health Minister, the matter has been
referred to CPIO,Vigilance MOHFW(Sh.Arun Baroka) who would be giving you the
necessary reply.
5(a): As for the address
of the people who imported costly medical equipments duty free would be
available with the Custom Authorities, as such you requested to approach
concerned CPIO of their department.
5(b) The judgement of
the Division Bench comprising Justice Y.K.Sabbarwal and Justice D.K.Jain (CWP
409/1996) is spread over a period of five years. You are requested to approach
the CPIO in the Ministry of Law and Justice for the same. These judgments
are also available in the NIC Net and other legal publications.
5(c) The persons from
whom the custom duty was collected would be available with the Department of
Revenue/Custom Authorities and as such, you are requested to approach the CPIO
in that Ministry.
5(d) Directorate General
of Health Services has withdrawn custom duty exemption granted under 64/88 Cus.
Notification to all institutions except for (i) Ramakrishana Mission
Hospital, Itanagar, (ii) Maharaj Sawant Singh, Beas Hospital, (iii) Shankara
Netralaya, Chennai and (iv) Sri Satya Sai Hospital, Puttaparthi
(e) As per
records of Dte.GHS, exemption certificate under 64/88 Cus. Notification was not
issued to Sai Ram Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mylapore.
5(f) Copy of the notification 64/88 is enclosed.
5(g) Regarding copy
of the report dated 29.8.1996 of Sh. K. Chandramaoli, it has been referred to CPIO
Vigilance, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Sh.Arun
Baroka).
Yours faithfully,
(Dr.P.Ravindran)
Director, Emergency Medical Relief
Copy to:
Sh .V.P.Gubrani, Dy.Director
Administration, Dte.GHS (RTI Section)
NOTIFICATION
NO.64/89-CUSTOMS - DT.1.3.1988
Exemption to hospital
equipments imported by specified category of hospitals (charitable) subject to
certification from DGHS etc. - In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act,1962 (52 of 1962), the Central
Govt., being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do,
hereby exempts all equipments, apparatus and appliances, including spare
parts and accessories thereof, but excluding consumable items
(hereinafter referred to as the “hospital equipment”), the import of which is approved
either generally or in each case by the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, or by the Directorate General of Health Services to the Govt.
of India, as essential for use in any hospital specified in the Table below,
from -
(i) the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the First
Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
(51 of 1975), and
(ii) the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under section 3 of
the said Customs Tariff Act.
2. In approving the import of any hospital equipment under
paragraph 1, regard shall be had to the following factors namely:-
(i) that the hospital equipment in respect of which the exemption is claimed
under this notification is not manufactured
in India and
(ii) that the hospital equipment in respect of which the exemption is
claimed is necessary for running or
maintenance of the hospital.
3. Provided that in the case of import of spare parts, approval
as specified in paragraph I will be required subject to the conditions
that -
(i) the spare parts are imported by the hospital.
(ii) the hospital will, at the time of importation,
produce a certificate from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or the
Directorate General of health Services that the said hospital falls in one of
the categories of
hospitals specified in the said Table;
(iii) the Head of the hospital certifies that the spare
parts in question are required for the
maintenance of an imported equipment in use with the hospital and such parts will not be used
for any other purpose.
TABLE
1. All such hospitals as
may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to be run or
substantially aided by such charitable organisation as may be approved, from
time to time, by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
2. All such hospitals
which may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in
each case, to be run for providing medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment not
only without any distinction of caste, creed, race, religion or language but
also
(a) free on an average, to at least 40 per cent of all their
outdoor patients, and
(b) free to all indoor patients belonging to families with an
income of less than rupees five hundred per month, and keeping for this purpose
at least 10 per cent of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients and
(e) at reasonable charges, either on the basis of the
income of the patients concerned or
otherwise, to patients other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b).
3. Any such hospital in
respect of which the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, may, having
regard to the type of medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment available there,
or the geographical situation thereof, or the class of patients for whom the
medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment is being provided, certify either
generally or in each case, that the hospital, even though it makes a charge for
the said treatment, is nevertheless run on non-profit basis and is deserving of
exemption from the payment of duty on the said
hospital equipment under this notification.
Provided that the hospital equipment in respect of which the
exemption is claimed, is imported by such hospital by way of free gift from
donor abroad or has been purchased out of donations received abroad in foreign
exchange.
Provided further that where the said hospital equipment has
been purchased out of donations received abroad in foreign exchange, the
hospital has been permitted to maintain a account abroad by the Reserve
Bank of India for the purposes of receiving funds donated overseas.
4. Any such hospital which is in the process of being
established and in respect of which the said Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare is of opinion -
(i) that there is an appropriate programme for
establishment of hospital
(ii) that there are sufficient funds and other resources
required for such establishment of the hospital
(iii) that such hospital would be in a position to start
functioning within a period of two years, and
(iv) that such hospital, when starts functioning would be
relatable to a hospital specified in
paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 of this Table.
and the said Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare certifies to that effect.
Provided that -
(a) in the case of a hospital relatable to paragraph 3 of this
Table, the importer produces evidence to the a Assistant Collector of Customs at the time of clearance of the
said hospital equipment that the same is being imported in accordance
with the conditions specified in proviso to that
paragraph
(b) the importer shall give and undertaking in writing to the
Assistant Collector at the time of clearance of the said hospital equipment that
the importer shall furnish certificates from the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or from the
Dir. General of
Health Services, Govt. of India, within such
period as the Asstt. Collector of customs may
specify in this behalf or within such
extended period as the Assistant Collector
of Customs, on sufficient cause being shown, may allow in
each case, to the effect -
(i) that such hospital equipment has been installed in the
hospital and
(ii) that such hospital has started functioning;
(c) the importer shall furnish, at the appropriate time, the
certificates referred to in (b);
(d) the importer executes a bond in
such form and for such sum as may be
specified by the Assistant Collector of Customs binding himself, to
pay on demand, an amount equal to the duty leviable on the said hospital equal to the
duty leviable on the said hospital equipment;
(i) if such hospital starts functioning within the period
specified therefore, as is not proved to
the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of
Customs to have been installed in such
hospital, or
(ii) if such hospital does not start functioning within the
period specified therefore.
Explanation:- For the
purposes of this notification, the expression “Hospital” includes any
institution centre, Trust, Society, Association, Laboratory, Clinic and
Maternity Home which renders medical, surgical or diagnostic
treatment.
SRI SATHYA SAI MEDICAL TRUST
PRASANTHI NILAYAM, DIST. ANANTPUR (A.P.) PIN
515134
Date 17.2.92
The Secretary,
National Committee For
Promotion of Social and Economic
Welfare,
Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 110
001.
Dear sir,
Re: Sri Sathya Sai Medical
Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam.
We hereby apply for approval of our
Institution u/s 35 AC of the Income tax Act. For this purpose we give below the
information:
1. The name of the Trust is
Sri Sathya Sai Medical Trust, Prasanhi Nilayam - 515 134, A.P.
2. The said Trust has been
constituted by Deed of Trust registered under the Endownment Act with Government of Andhra
Pradesh. A copy of the said Trust Deed as
well as registration certificate is enclosed herewith and marked 1 and
2.
3. Names and addresses
of the person managing the affairs of the Trust. The Trust
has the following 5 members.
i. Sri Sathya Sai Baba
ii. Col.S.P. Joga
Rao
iii. Justice B.V. Iradi
iv. Sri V. Sreenivasan
v. Sri Indulal H. Shah
The Bio-Data of each of these trustees is enclosed herewith and
marked as 3.
4. The Trust have been
registered with Income tax u/s 12A of the Income tax Act as well as is enjoying
exemption u/s 80G upto 31.3.1993. Both these certificates are enclosed herewith
and marked as 4 and 5.
5. Brief Particulars of the
Activities:
The objects of
the Trust are given in the Trust Deed. However the main objects are given in the
separate statement enclosed herewith and marked 6. From the said objects it will
be seen that the main objects of the Trust can be summarised as follows.
(i) To
promote the undertaking of any programmes of rural development. For the purpose
of this clause, the expression “Programmes of Rural Development” shall have the meaning
assigned to it in explanation to what is referred to in
Income tax Act, and as may be modified from time to time under the
said Act.
(ii) To Promote a special awareness on the part of the people
of India of the needs of the health education in rural areas.
(iii) To associate
with and conduct various programmes and research with the
professions and experts from time to time in the field of medicine.
With a view to
implement, the Trust has started Unit called Institute of Higher Medical
Sciences, with a Speciality Hospital. This Hospital was inaugurated by the
Prime Minister of India on 22nd Nov.1991. The opening of the Speciality Hospital
adds to the extension of Primary health care which is at the village leval and a
general hospital with 100 beds and out
patient facility which is already provided as a secondary health care. In
other words the Trust has primary health care and speciality health care.
The details given in the leaflet enclosed herewith marked 7 are self
explanatory.
What is important to note in this
that the Trust is carrying free medical care for the Rural Public of free of
cost irrespective of caste, creed and colour which is spelt out in the Trust
Deed.
6. Other
Information:
New Super speciality
hospital opened by Prime Minister of India, offer cardiology, cardiothoracic
survery, neurology, neurosurgery, nephrology, urology, renal and urologic
surgery, and oncology to all people free of cost regardless of caste, creed,
race or religion.
The new super speciality
hospital complex is located on 50 acres of land about five kilometres from the
Prasanthi Nilayam Campus, in a village Prashanthi Gram. In time to come
the Institute will be a centre of excellence in higher medicine, providing
facilities for postgraduate studies and staff exchange programmes with similar
centres of excellence in the USA, European nations, and other
countries.
The cost of the entire
project is estimated at Rs 200 Crores. Rs 100 Crores provide for the
construction and equipments, and the additional Rs 100 Crores will establish a
core fund to perpetuate the policy of free care for all in need, out of
interest.
It is important for
persons belonging to the weaker sections who are poor and disadvantaged that
superior Medical care costing enormous sums of money, which is inaccessible to
them due to their poverty and helplessness, is made available to them, free of
cost, irrespective of caste, colour or creed.
Education which emphasizes the development of self discipline and character alongside the
acquisition of skills and knowledge is offered free to all people, through Sri
Satya Sai Institute of Higher Learning founded by Rev. Sri Sathya Sai Baba in 3
campuses with headquarters at Prashanthi Nilayam, Rev.Baba has now begun to
demonstrate to mankind the proper function of the Institute of
Medicine
7. We hereby affirm that
no benefit from the project or scheme will accure to the persons managing the
trust.
8. We are in need of funds for our projects of Urology and
Nephrology and Neurology. For the next five years, our requirements for
these projects will be as follows:
Cost of Equipments for:
|
(a) Urology and Nephrology |
Rs. 5.0 Crores
|
| |
|
|
(b) Neurology |
Rs. 7.5 Crores |
| |
|
| |
Rs.12.50 Crores |
| |
|
| For
recurring expenses of the Hospital - Rs.50 lacs per month for next 5 years |
Rs.30.00 Crores |
| |
|
| |
Rs.42.50 Crores |
We shall be obliged if
the National Committee would approve our Institution or Organisation and
recommend our above projects as eligible under section 45AC of the Income -tax
Act,1961.
We shall be glad to give
you any further information that you may require.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
For SRI SATHYA SAI MEDICAL
TRUST,
INDULAL H. SHAH
Trustee.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Revenue (CT.II)
Department
Memo
No.20194/CT.ii(1)/2005
Dated:29.06.2005
Sub: APVAT Act,2005 - Sri Satya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur District - Request
for continuation of exemptions granted under APGST
Act,1957 on sales of
articles of food, eatables etc, - Regarding.
Ref: 01. Letter of the Secretary, Sri Satya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam Ananthapur District,
Dt.02.04.2005.
02.From the CCT,Lr.No.PMT/P&L/Trdrs/2005, Dt.21.05.2005.
The Secretary, Sri Satya
Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur District in his letter first cited
requested for issuing of necessary notifications under the provisions of AP VAT
Act,2005 for allowing them to continue the exemptions granted under the
provisions of repealed APGST Act,1957(1) in G.O.Ms.No.714, Revenue,
Dt.22.08.1997,(2) in G.O.Ms.No.52, Revenue,Dt.29.01.2000,(3) in
G.O.Ms.No.1126,Revenue, Dt.13.11.2003, from levy of sales tax on supply of food
stuffs to patients and their attendants in the medical institutions maintained
by the trust, on sale of articles of food, eatabls and other consumer goods of
daily use to devotees and sale of
Books, Photographs, Dairies, Calendars, Souvenirs, Audio/Video
cassettes, C.Ds./DVDs etc. He has also requested for granting refund of tax paid
on their purchases under section 15(1) of the APVAT Act,2005, which is
considered separately.
2) In the
reference 2nd cited, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes requested to consider
the request of the trust for granting refund of tax paid on purchases under
Section 15 of the AP VAT Act,2005 and in respect of exemptions claimed by them
on sales of food, eatables and other articles etc., he has sought for a
clarification to exclude the trust from the purview of dealers with regard to
their sales in view of the view taken by the Committee of Group of Ministers
constituted for implementation of VAT at its meeting held on
28.04.2005.
3) The Government, after
having examined the matter with reference to the view taken by the Committee of
Group of Ministers constituted for implementation of VAT at its meeting held on
28.04.2005,hereby clarify that Sri Satya Sai Central Trust including all other
sub-trusts, shall be excluded from the purview of dealer, in view of the fact
that there is no specific provision under the APVAT Act,2005,to continue the
exemptions granted to them under the provisions of repealed APGST Act,
1957. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is requested to take necessary
action accordingly.
N.S.HARIHARAN
SPECIAL CHIEF-SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
Copy to
Sri Satya Sai Central Trust,
Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur District Sf/sc
//FORWARDED BY ORDER//
SECTION OFFICER
THE ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE
PART-I EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No.484] HYDERABAD, THURSDAY, JULY
7, 2005.
NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
(CT-II)
REFUND OF TAX TO SRI SATYA SAI
CENTRAL TRUST AND ITS ORGANISATIONS UNDER THE ANDHRA PRADESH VALUE ADDED TAX
ACT,2005.]
[G.O.Ms.N0.1282,Revenue (CT.-II),30th June,2005]
In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section(1) of
Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act,2005, the Governor of
Andhra Pradesh, having found it necessary to do so in the public interest,
hereby directs that the tax paid;
(1) By Sri Satya
Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh on
purchase of goods required for the construction activity and civil works
connected with the trust including the works of Sri Satya Sai Water Projects for
providing safe drinking water to upland habitations in East and West Godavari
Districts,
(2) By Sri Satya
Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prasanthi Gram, Sri Satya Sai Medical
Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam on the purchase of medicines and other surgical
consumables, all sophisticated medical equipment and machinery and furniture
items like cots, mattresses, tables, chairs etc., for use in the institutions and
hospitals maintained by the trust, Under the provisions of the said Act shall be
refunded to the respective purchasers subject to the following
conditions.
CONDITIONS
(1) The purchases
made by Sri Satya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Satya Sai Institute
of Higher Medical Sciences, Prasanthi Gram, Sri Satya Sai Medical
Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam should have been made for utilization in the execution
of works relating to the trust or for use in the institutions maintained by the
trust:
G.503
(2) Sri satya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam should
furnish a declaration duly signed by the Secretary or the person authorized by
him in this regard to the effect that the goods purchased are for utilization in
the execution of works relating to the trust or for use in the institutions
maintained by the trust for each tax invoice or invoice in respect of which
refund of tax paid is claimed.
This notification is deemed to have come into force with effect
from 01-04-2005.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Revenue (CT.II) Department
Memo
No.42334/CT.II(1)/2005-1 Dated:17.11.2005
Sub: APVAT Act,2005 - Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam - Exemption under the Act to the
newly registered trusts-Exclusion from the purview of
dealer - Orders -Issued
Ref: 1. Govt.Memo No.20194/CT.II(1)/2005,Dt.29.06.2005.
2. Representation from Sri Sathya Sai
Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam, Dt.25.08.2005.
The attention of
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is invited to the
reference 2nd cited (copy enclosed). He is informed that the request made by Sri
Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam in the reference 2nd citied, has been
examined and it is informed that the provisions of the Govt. Memo. first cited ,
are also extended to the two newly registered trusts at Prasanthi Nilayam
Viz.(1) Easwaramma Women’s Welfare Trust and (ii) Sri Sathya Sai Media
Foundation, by excluding them from the purview of ‘dealer’, with regard to their
sales.
2) The Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is, therefore, requested to take necessary
action accordingly.
N.S.HARIHARAN
SPECIAL CHIEF-SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.(w.e).
Copy to
The Secretary, Sri Satya Sai Central
Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur
District PIN-515143
Sf/sc
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
THE ANDHRA PRADESH GAZETTE
PART-I EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No.60] HYDERABAD, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
(CT-II)
AMENDMENT TO SRI SATYA SAI CENTRAL
TRUST, AND ITS ORGANISATIONS FOR REFUND OF TAX UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH VALUE ADDED
TAX ACT,2005.
[G.O.Ms.N0.95,Revenue (CT.-II),28th January,2006]
AMENDMENT
In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section(1)
of Section 15 of the
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax
Act,2005, and in partial modifications of the orders issued in
G.O.Ms.No.1282,Revenue (CT.II) Department, Dated 30-06-2005, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the following shall be substituted instead of
the existing para (2) of the Notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1282, Revenue
(CT.II)Department:
(2) “By Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Science, Prashanthigram/Sri Sathya
Sai Medical Trust, Prashanthi Nilayam on the purchase of drugs and
medicines and all surgical consumables, all medical equipment and machinery for
support services, spares for diesel generating sets, boilers and air
conditioning equipment, medical gases and dietary items for the patients, all
furniture items used in hospitals maintained by the trust under the provisions
of the said Act shall be refunded to the respective purchasers
subject to the following
conditions:”
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Revenue (CT.II)
Department
Memo No.46466/CT.II(1)/2005 Dated:04.02.2006
Sub: APVAT Act,2005 - Sri Satya Sai Veda Pratistan and Sri Satya Sai Students &
Staff Welfare Society - Exemption from the purview of dealer specified
under the Act - Orders issued -Regarding
Ref: 01. Govt.Memo.No.20194/CT.II(1)/2005, dt. 29.06.2005.
02. From the Managing Trustee,Sri Satya
Sai Veda Pratistan, Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur
District,dt.30.11.2005.
03. From Sri K.R.Paramahamsa,Sri Satya Sai
Students & Staff Welfare Society, Prasanthi Nilayam, Ananthapur
District,
Dt.30.11.2005.
The Managing
Trustee of Sri Satya Sai Veda Pratistan and Sri Satya Sai Students & Staff
Welfare Society, Prasanthi Nilayam, Anantapur District have requested to extend
the exemptions granted vide Govt.Memo. 1st cited to Sri Satya Sai Central
Trust, Prasanti Nilayam, Ananthapur District, for exempting the Trust from the
purview of dealer specified under the AP VAT Act,2005.
2) The Government,after having
examined the matter, hereby clarify and order that Sri Satya Sai Veda Pratistan
and Sri Satya Sai Students & Staff Welfare Society, Prasanthi
Nilayam, Anantapur District, shall be excluded from the purview of dealer, as
there is no specific provision under the APVAT Act,2005, to continue the
exemptions granted to them under the provisions of repealed APGST Act,1957. The
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is requested to take necessary action
accordingly.
S.V.PRASAD
To PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
The Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
Copy to : Sri Satya Sai Veda
Pratistan, Prasanti Nilayam,Ananthapur District.
Sri Satya Sai Students & Staff Welfare Society, Prasanthi
Nilayam,
Anantapur District.
Sf/sc //FORWARDED BY
ORDER//
SECTION OFFICER
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
REVENUE
(CT.II) DEPARTMENT
Memo
No.46498/CT.II(1)/04-3 Dated:6.3.2006
Sub: APGST Act, 1957 - Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam - Exemption from
payment of sales tax and TOT on the work
done through L&T and other agencies -
Regarding.
Ref: 1. Representation from Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, addressed to C.M., received with CMP No.11070/2004,
Dt.07.12.2004.
2. Government D.O.Letter
No.46498/CT.II(1)/2004-1, dated
28.12.2004.
3. Government Memo.even
No.,dt.23.10.2006.
4. From the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, letter No.CCTS
Ref.No.A1(1)/87/2006,dated 2-2-2006.
The attention of the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the references
cited and he is informed that vide G.O.Ms.No.1282/Revenue (CT.II)
Department, dated 30.6.2006 (Copy enclosed) the orders were issued granting
refund of APVAT paid under Section 15 of the APVAT. The Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes is therefore requested to inform the petitioner
accordingly.
B.RAMAKISTIAH,
SPECIAL OFFICER (CT)
To
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad.
//FORWARDED BY ORDER//
SECTION OFFICER
|
