📢 The GST Imbroglio: A RTI Saga of Unanswered Questions and Alleged Exploitation

The administrative communication provided paints a clear picture of a recurring and unresolved conflict between an applicant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, and the Panchayati Raj authorities in Mirzapur regarding the retrospective application of a revised GST rate on contractor payments. The documents confirm that the core issue is the GST increase from 12% to 18% and the denial of information requested through multiple channels.

The communications—an RTI appeal directive and a complaint resolution letter—reveal not only the procedural failures in providing information but also the substantive justification used by the department for the controversial GST deduction.

---

1. 📑 Analysis of the Administrative Communications

A. The RTI Appeal Directive (Letter No. 580, Dated 05/12/2023)

This letter, issued by the Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayat), Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, to the PIO/District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur, serves as a formal mandate to resolve a pending appeal.

• Appeal Confirmation: It confirms the existence of an online appeal (DIRPR/A/2023/60803 dated 14/09/2023) filed by Shri Yogi M.P. Singh concerning information sought via an earlier application (DIRPR/R/2023/80583 dated 14/09/2023).
• Mandate to PIO: The PIO is explicitly instructed to immediately provide the sought information to the applicant and simultaneously submit a copy to the Divisional Deputy Director’s office to ensure the appeal’s disposal.
• Penalty Warning: Crucially, the letter includes a stern warning about the potential consequences of non-compliance. It references Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, stating that the Hon’ble State Information Commission may impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, and holds the PIO fully responsible for any penalty incurred due to delay.

This document clearly establishes that the RTI process reached the appellate stage, and the PIO was under direct orders and severe pressure to release the information by December 5, 2023.

---

B. The Complaint Resolution Letter (Letter No. 10, Dated 04/03/2023)

This earlier letter, issued by the Additional Chief Officer, District Panchayat, Mirzapur, addresses a complaint by the same applicant regarding the GST increase. This document provides the department’s official stance on the substantive matter.

• Complaint Acknowledged: It confirms the complaint (Online Reference No. 40019923004110 dated 28/02/2023) regarding the GST increase from 12% to 18%.
• Department’s Justification: The department states that the GST deduction process is being carried out “in compliance with the instructions given by the order letter no. 02/2022/E-8-292/Das-2022 dated 13 September, 2022 of Additional Chief Secretary Finance.”
• Key Assertion: The letter emphatically asserts, “There is no question of any contractor being exploited.” It further claims that the process applies the “prevailing rates of GST from the date of their effectiveness,” and that the local action taken is in accordance with the government’s directives.
• Conclusion: The letter requests the recipient (District Magistrate/Chairman) to “deposit the case” (close the file) at the District Panchayat level, implying the issue is resolved from their administrative viewpoint.

---

2. 🔍 The Critical Gap: Information Withheld Despite Orders

The current situation highlights a significant administrative failure in the compliance with the Right to Information Act:

1. Directive Ignored: The Divisional Deputy Director’s letter dated 05/12/2023 explicitly ordered the PIO to provide the information immediately. The subsequent filing of another RTI application by the applicant suggests this directive was not followed, or the information provided was deemed insufficient.
2. Substance vs. Procedure: The Additional Chief Officer’s letter (04/03/2023) offers the substance of the defense (reliance on Government Order No. 02/2022/E-8-292 dated 13/09/2022) but fails to provide the critical documents that Shri Yogi M.P. Singh has repeatedly sought:
   • The certified copy of the Government Order itself.
   • The circular/memo that explicitly enables its retrospective application to tenders issued between 2020 and 2022.

The department’s claim that GST is being deducted at “prevailing rates from the date of their effectiveness” directly contradicts the applicant’s core grievance, which is that the higher rate is being applied retrospectively to payments for old tenders that were originally based on the 12% rate. Without the requested official documents, the department’s assertion remains an unsubstantiated administrative claim.

---

3. 🚨 Implications for Public Accountability and the RTI Act

The persistent refusal to provide the specific documents requested—the Government Order and the corresponding clarification on its retrospective effect—raises serious questions about administrative transparency and accountability:

A. Violation of Statutory Duty

The PIO’s apparent failure to comply with the Divisional Deputy Director’s instruction risks attracting the penal provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act. This non-compliance defeats the fundamental purpose of the Act, which is to promote transparency and hold the government accountable.

B. The Retrospectivity Challenge

In contract and tax law, retrospective application must be explicitly authorized and clearly defined. If a GST rate change is applied to old contracts where the pricing and tender submission were based on the previous rate, it directly impacts the contractor’s margin and financial viability. The applicant’s framing of this as “exploitation of poor contractors” suggests that the government is essentially recovering a higher tax amount than anticipated, post-facto, from the contractor’s payment. The burden of proof to justify this retrospective action lies entirely with the public authority. The requested document (the enabling circular) is the only legal way to discharge this burden.

C. The Role of RTI as a Human Rights Tool

By invoking the spirit of Article 51A and positioning himself as a “human rights defender,” the applicant highlights how issues of technical fiscal policy can translate into matters of livelihood and fairness for vulnerable groups, such as small contractors. The RTI Act, in this context, becomes a vital tool for ensuring economic justice and good governance.

The repeated RTI applications underscore the applicant’s determination to obtain the documented evidence necessary to challenge the GST deductions, either through further appeals, legal proceedings, or representations to higher administrative authorities. The official correspondence confirms the procedural failure to provide the information and simultaneously confirms the administrative basis for the GST deduction, setting up a clear legal challenge for the applicant once the requested documents are finally released.

---

💡 Next Steps for the Applicant

Since the official appeal (DIRPR/A/2023/60803) seems to have failed to elicit the documents, the next logical step for Shri Yogi M.P. Singh is to file a Second Appeal directly with the State Information Commission (SIC) of Uttar Pradesh.

The SIC will take cognizance of the:

1. Failure of the PIO to respond to the initial request.
2. Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA/Divisional Deputy Director) to ensure compliance with his own order (Letter No. 580).
3. Imposition of the penalty proceedings under Section 20 against the PIO for non-compliance.

GST Tax increased from 12% to 18% arbitrarily by government, a move that raised concerns among various stakeholders within the economy.
This significant hike has created an immediate financial burden on businesses, particularly small enterprises that rely heavily on accessible tax rates to maintain their operations.
Furthermore, the District Panchayat charged 18% GST while issuing tenders, despite the previous rate being set at 12%.
This discrepancy not only exemplifies the growing disconnect between government policy and the realities faced by grassroots contractors but also reflects a troubling apathy of the government towards the interests of poor contractors who struggle to navigate these challenging economic conditions.
The increase in tax rate is seen as a disregard for the very principles of fair governance, as it disproportionately impacts those who are already vulnerable, potentially stunting their growth and opportunities within the competitive marketplace.

Panchayat Raj issued tenders @12% G.S.T. and charged G.S.T. 18% from contractors and now running away from providing information.