Salaried Bank Account Freezed by GST Intelligence: CIC upholds CPIO’ Decision to Deny Information u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act [Read Order]

The Central Information Commission ( CIC ) has upheld the decision of the Central Public Information Officer ( CPIO ) to deny access to information concerning orders issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence ( DGGI ) for the blocking of a salaried individual's bank account, including any related notices issued, as well as the bank's response to the account blockage. CP Bhatia, a salaried individual with no business income, filed an RTI application seeking clarity on actions affecting his ICICI bank account used for receiving salary. According to Bhatia, between mid-August and September 2022, he was unable to access his account. This caused personal distress, particularly as his elderly father was gravely ill during that period and required medical care. His father passed away on September 27, 2022. Raise Funds Smarter – Your Guide to SME IPO Success- Click here to enroll Furthermore, a cheque he issued to Royal Sundaram Insurance Company on September 6, 2022, was dishonoured, resulting in the cancellation of his motorcar insurance. When he contacted the insurance company, they cited "Account blocked, situation covered in 21-25" as the reason. Bhatia attempted to resolve the issue by contacting ICICI Bank but received no information. His repeated calls and emails were ultimately ignored, and his email ID was blocked, making him feel criminalised. He then sent a physical letter to the bank's senior management. Then he learned that his salary account had been blocked by the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Mumbai. Raise Funds Smarter – Your Guide to SME IPO Success- Click here to enroll In response, Bhatia sought information under the RTI Act regarding any orders issued by DGGI in August or September 2022 to freeze his savings account, including copies of the orders, reasons for the actions, and details of the approving officers. Bhatia's RTI application also requested details on whether his account was later unfrozen and if any orders or communications were issued for such action. He inquired about any preliminary investigations conducted before the account freeze, including notices issued and rationale for the decision, to determine whether due process and natural justice were observed. Additionally, he asked for a copy of any information supplied by ICICI Bank and sought to know if any action had been taken against officers for alleged misuse of power in his case. Raise Funds Smarter – Your Guide to SME IPO Success- Click here to enroll However, the CPIO O furnished a reply to the Appellant denying the information as per section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act states about “exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders” The respondent, in its written submission before the bench stated that “In the instant case, the investigation involved defrauding the Government of its legitimate revenue by indulging in offshore online betting and siphoning off the money outside India. The investigation involved multilocational searches at more than 50 places. The incriminating records seized during the searches were voluminous in nature and required a detailed and thorough analysis. Owing to the complexities involved in the fraud's "online" nature, the number of conspirators and the investigation are spanning over multiple states, the investigation is still in progress and has not attained its finality. Hence, the provision of information sought by Shri CP Bhatia in the subject RTI would have seriously hampered the ongoing investigation.” The Information Commissioner, Vinod Kumar Tiwari upholding the decision of the CPIO observed that since investigation in this case is pending at the relevant time and also as on date, which is yet to attain finality; therefore, disclosure of information sought for would definitely impede the process of investigation and the information has accordingly been denied by invoking Section 8(1)(h). Raise Funds Smarter – Your Guide to SME IPO Success- Click here to enroll Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the CPIO’s response, as the nature of the queries raised indicated that disclosing such information could hinder the investigative process, as outlined under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. No relief was granted and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Salaried Bank Account Freezed by GST Intelligence: CIC upholds CPIO’ Decision to Deny Information u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act [Read Order]

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics

Salaried Bank Account Freezed by GST Intelligence: CIC upholds CPIO’ Decision to Deny Information u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act [Read Order]

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Sign-up to receive exclusive news and promotions straight to your inbox!

Topics