के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/CCEXB/A/2024/114923 Kodur Venkatesh .….अपीलक VERSUS बनाम PIO, Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru-North GST Commissionerate, HMT Bhavan, Ganga Nagar, Bellary Road, Bengaluru- 560032 ….प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Decision : 21.11.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 27.02.2024 CPIO replied on : 22.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 29.03.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 30.04.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.05.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I, Dr. KodurVenkatesh, a citizen of India, making this RTI Application u/s 6 (1) of the RTI Act seeking the following information within 30 days on receipt of this Application.

Please provide documents/all papers available in my file in connection with Reward for providing Intelligence about Navodaya Security Services during 2017 leading to Recovery of nearly Seven Crores. I have been dealt with unfairly and I am eligible for a Reward of atleast 70 Lakhs and my communication is very clear in this regard.

The documents (from start to end) being sought are about my own case and intelligence and I am not seeking information about any third person or invite any confidentiality.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.03.2024 stating as under:

“Please refer to the RTI application dated 27.02.2024, filed by you in this office. The reply to the same is furnished below:

The Information sought by you relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and furnishing of the same is restrained in terms of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005.

Further, in terms of Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005, information relating to the assistance given in confidence for law enforcement is exempt from disclosure. As the information sought by you is covered under the said exemption clause as well, hence, this office is restrained from furnishing the said information.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 30.04.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Shri Rama Holla P., CPIO-cum-Assistant Commissioner, attended the hearing through VC.

6. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that the averred Tax Evasion Petition was filed by him on which he is seeking information from the Respondent.

7. The Respondent submitted that the averred reward file (which is an e-

office file and not a physical file) claimed by the Appellant is an inter- departmental file and not a personal file of the Appellant. Furthermore, in this instance, the reward file contains information regarding third parties which are confidential in nature such as names of officers, notes, taxpayer details, etc. and hence this file cannot be disclosed under Section of 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. He further apprised the Bench of the fact that while sanctioning the reward amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Appellant, the guidelines mentioned in CBIC Reward Guidelines, 2015 has been followed carefully. Now, the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking redressal of his grievance.

8. A written submission has been received from Shri Rama Holla P., CPIO-

cum-Assistant Commissioner, vide letter dated 17.11.2025, wherein the Commission has been appr