Conversation opened. 1 read message. Skip to content <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/> Using Gmail with screen readers <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/> Nelson <http://www.google.co.in/intl/en/options/> <https://accounts.google.com/SignOutOptions?hl=en&continue=https://mail.google.com/mail&service=mail> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox> Search Gmail COMPOSE Labels Inbox (51) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox> Starred <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#starred> Important <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#imp> Sent Mail <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent> Drafts (351) <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#drafts> Circles <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#circle> Letters <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Letters> Notes <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Notes> Personal <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Personal> Travel <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Travel> More
------------------------------ Hangouts Move to Inbox More *19* of *1,833* [image: Print all] [image: In new window] customer right to know tax/vat deduction Nelson Lopes <[email protected]> Oct 5 (7 days ago) to Editor CUSTOMER`S RIGHT TO KNOW TAX/VAT DEDUCTION A dealer issues a tax invoice for goods purchased and refuses even on demand to disclose deductions. The customary , compulsory stamp inclusive of all taxes is also absent .Under RTI act CTO was asked for the amount of tax deducted in my specific case, why it was not disclosed on tax invoice and whether the same has accrued to the Govt.The reply mentions that dealer paid tax up to quarter end of June of the year. The objection that information sought is in question and answer form is not valid as , information has to be provided in the form asked for as per section 7(9) .PIO states that disclosure is bared u/s 8 (d) &(j). The former refers to commercial confidence and trade secrets, intellectual property rights harming the competitiveness of third party and latter refers to personal information, The dealer is the first party and customer is the second party and disclosure of tax deductions to the customer has nothing to do with the sections mentions above, The PIO, CTO does not provide the mandatory address of Appellate Authority, or the time limit, until requested for in writing in his order The Appellate Authority under CTO rejects the appeal not being in the format of rule 3&4 of appeal procedure rules 2006,Further in the same communications threatens to reject it without any further reference, if not resubmitted within 7 days of receipt and such threats are unprecedented damper of intentional dicouragement. On the appointed, scheduled date of hearing the Appellate Authority remains absent without any intimation to the appellant . The appellant was informed in writing a second time that the appeal shall be disposed exparte. As per section 27 of RTI Act 2005Goa Govt, rules 7 (2)Personal presence “ at his discretion, at the time of hearing of the appeal be present in person ,or through his duly authorized representative or may opt not to be present”, The arrogance, of threats of ex-parte decision or rejecting the appeal without further reference is absolutely arbitrary and uncalled for misplaced authority under the rules., The appeal heard on 5-12-14, the report was mailed on 16-2-2015 , after 2 months and 11 days , instead of 30 days and only after reminder on 27.01.2015 The report sanctimoniously upholds the PIO findings and without mandatory informing address and time limit of next appellate authority. u./s 10 2(a) severability clause, only that part of information on specific tax deductions requested can be made available to the customer and in his own case. u/s 11 there is nothing on record to show that dealer presumed to be a third party is contacted u./s.11 (1)&(2) is contacted to disclosure of severed information on specific tax deduction The authority appears to be not satisfied that this information disclosure warrants in larger public interest There are instances of tax deductions are not paid tp the Govt, in large number of cases The appellate authority informs that such scrutiny of record cannot be made even after specific complaint, but will be done in due course of procedure The PIO and appellate authority of CTO is not protecting the interest of the customer in disclosing tax deducted from him , not indicated in the Tax Invoice, By no stretch of imagination and interpretation dealer presumed to be a third party, is not designated as public authority and that request for deducted vat does not relate to his personal information 8(j) and cannot be inferred as commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property rights and such disclosure of specific vat deductions from a customer is not in larger public interest . The misinterpretations, threats, delays are not encouraging the informed citizen to be vigilant informer and also in his own interests, whether he cheated in that deductions claimed from him, It was surprising that the dealer called the appellant on phone on the very date of submission to chide and say that nothing will happen and it is so from the proceedings of the process The RTI I defined in Chapter I 2 (j) and is very detailed for any ambiguity Nelson Lopes Chinchinim. Click here to Reply or Forward 5.71 GB (38%) of 15 GB used Manage <https://accounts.google.com/b/0/ManageStorage?hl=en> Terms <https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/> - Privacy <https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/> Last account activity: 1 hour ago Details [image: The Editor Gomantak Times's profile photo] The Editor Gomantak Times Acquaintances Show details
