Case Law Details
Deepak Kumar Acharya Vs Commissioner (Orissa High Court)
In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court addressed a contentious issue involving the Right to Information (RTI) Act and tax evasion. The case, Deepak Kumar Acharya vs. Commissioner, revolved around a petition seeking the outcome of a tax evasion petition. The court’s decision to uphold the authorities’ refusal to disclose this information under the RTI Act highlights the complexities of balancing transparency with legal confidentiality.
Background of the Case: The petitioner, Deepak Kumar Acharya, filed a writ petition challenging the orders under Annexures-4, 5, and 6, seeking the broad outcome of a tax evasion petition filed by him. Represented by Ms. S. Devi, Acharya argued that despite filing a request under the RTI Act, the information was not provided, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.
Petitioner’s Argument: Ms. S. Devi contended that Acharya merely sought to know the outcome of his tax evasion petition. The RTI application, filed on 30th August 2017, sought extensive information regarding the investigation into Harmohan Sarangi and Himanshu Sarangi’s tax affairs, including the progress of the investigation, reasons for delays, and details of tax assessments and payments.
Respondent’s Argument: Mr. S.C. Mohanty, representing the Revenue, countered that the petitioner’s request was a guise to access detailed, sensitive information, which is explicitly protected under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. This section exempts the disclosure of information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Court’s Findings: Upon reviewing the submissions and the RTI request, the court found that Acharya’s application sought extensive details beyond a simple outcome summary. The court observed that the information requested constituted a “roving enquiry,” incompatible with the limitations set forth by the RTI Act. The detailed nature of the requested information, involving third-party tax assessments and investigative details, was deemed beyond the permissible scope of disclosure.
Legal Interpretation: The court underscored that Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act aims to protect sensitive information that could hinder ongoing investigations. By asking for detailed progress reports, assessment records, and internal communications, the petitioner overstepped the boundaries of what can be disclosed under the RTI Act. The court affirmed that the authorities acted within their legal rights to deny such information, as its disclosure could compromise the integrity of tax investigations.
Conclusion: The Orissa High Court’s ruling in Deepak Kumar Acharya vs. Commissioner reinforces the protective measures embedded in the RTI Act concerning sensitive investigative information. This judgment delineates the boundaries of information disclosure under the RTI Act, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the integrity of tax and legal investigations. The dismissal of the writ petition reaffirms that requests for information under the RTI Act must adhere to the stipulated legal framework, balancing the right to information with the necessity of confidentiality in investigative processes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. S. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the orders passed by the authority under Annexures-4, 5 and 6, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to disclose the broad outcome of the tax evasion petition filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2.
4. Ms. S. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner only wants to know the outcome of the tax evasion petition filed by him under Annexure-2. Though the petitioner asked for such information under the Right to Information Act, the same has not been provided to him. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that the petitioner has approached this Court in a camouflage manner claiming to know the broad outcome of the proceeding, but that itself is contrary to clause (i) of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act, wherein it is provided not to disclose the proceeding before anybody. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the orders impugned, which do not require any interference of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act to get the following information:-
“Kindly provide me the following information pertaining to my Tax-Evasion Petition against Mr. Harmohan Sarangi & Mr. Himanshu Sarangi (sent to office vide Speed Post ref. R08002098781N dt. 26.08.2017.
1. The daily progress made on my application TEP dt. 30.08.2017 to till date. Kindly provide a copy of preliminary assessments/ investigation.
2. Recorded Reasons for delay in taking action on my application.
3. Names and designations of officials who have considered my application and the number of days it was laying with each official during this period.
4. Date by when action would be completed in my case.
5. As per your record, please inform that Mr. Harmohn Sarangi & Mr, Himanshu Sarangi is an Income tax Assessee or not.
6. Harmohan Sarangi & Mr. Himanshu Sarangi have been filling Income Tax Return on a regular basis or not.
7. Whether Mr. Harmohan Sarangi & Mr. Himanshu Sarangi has disclosed the source of their income which can accumulate to Rs.19 lacs in Financial year 2015-16.
8. Whether Mr. Harmohan Sarangi & Himanshu Sarangi justified the sources of funds (19 lacs rupees) used for marriage expenses and dowry.
9. Details of the source of funds used for marriage expenses and dowry.
10. Whether Mr. Harmohan Sarangi & Himanshu Sarangi has paid appropriate tax in Financial Year 2015-16.
11. Details of the investigating Officer responsible for Investigating the Income Tax assessment of Mr. harmohan Sarangi & Himanshu Sarangi. What is the status of the appeal and till what time could its’s disposal be expected?
12. Legal recourse/ action available against income Tax Assessees for recovering dues of Income Tax.
13. Certified copies of the Tax Assessment Orders after the TEP Investigation is complied with respect to Mr. harmohan Sarangi & Himanshu Sarangi.
14. Certified copy of communication records between Mr. Harmohan Sarangi & Himanshu Sarangi of the Income Tax Department.”
7. On perusal of the aforementioned information, it appears that the petitioner wanted to get information pertaining to tax evasion petition against Harmohan Sarangi and Himansu Sarangi (sent to office vide speed post ref:R08002098781N dated 06.08.2017). But such information, in any way, do not indicate that the petitioner has made a query and sought for information with regard to disclosure of broad outcome of tax evasion petition under Annexure-2. Rather, the information sought for by the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner has tried to make a roving enquiry and for supply of those materials, which are not to be disclosed in view of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the Public Information Officer rejected his claim, which has been confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority. Now learned counsel for the petitioner made innocuous prayer that the petitioner only wanted to know the broad outcome of the tax evasion petition under Annexure-2. But the aforesaid prayer was not sought in the application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and, as such, nowhere the same has been indicated in the application filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2. As such, the claim of the petitioner with regard to supply of information sought for in the application filed under Right to Information Act, is not permissible in view of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act.
8. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the orders impugned under Annexures-4, 5 and 6. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.
Author Bio
