Understanding illegal GST compliance starts with this Mirzapur RTI case, where a PIO’s rejection exposes retrospective tax rule violations. This case illuminates the complexities involved in tax compliance and the potential pitfalls that entities may encounter when interpreting GST regulations. The significance of this case cannot be understated, as it sets a precedent for future tax assessments and legal interpretations. The implications of such violations extend beyond mere penalties; they can lead to reputational damage and financial losses for businesses. As taxpayers navigate the evolving landscape of GST laws, it’s crucial to stay informed and proactive in addressing compliance issues. Read the full case to gain insights into the challenges faced by taxpayers and the critical importance of adhering to current tax rules.

The RTI Standoff in Mirzapur: Transparency Under Fire in the Panchayati Raj Department

Understanding illegal GST compliance requires looking past the tax code itself and into how public bodies handle disclosure. Fundamentally, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of Indian bureaucracy. Specifically, it was designed to empower the common citizen, like Yogi M. P. Singh, to demand accountability from those in power. However, a recent second appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow) reveals a troubling pattern of evasion, bureaucratic stonewalling, and, in addition, a blatant disregard for statutory mandates within the Mirzapur Panchayati Raj Department.

Ultimately, at the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental question of fiscal transparency: how is GST being applied to government contracts, and why, as a result, does information regarding these financial directives get treated like a state secret?

---

Understanding Illegal GST Compliance: The Genesis of the Dispute

To begin with, the controversy began when the appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, sought clarity on the implementation of Government Order No. 02/2022/E-8-292/Dec-2022, dated September 13, 2022. Specifically, this order addresses the retrospective application of GST rates — namely, the jump from 12% to 18% on tenders issued between 2020 and 2022 but paid in 2023. Cases like this are exactly why understanding illegal GST compliance matters to contractors and citizens alike: a retrospective rate change, applied without public documentation, is difficult to challenge if no one can see the rulebook.

Overall, the appellant’s request was straightforward. In short, he sought:

1. Additionally, a certified copy of the specific Government Order (GO).
2. Moreover, the circular or office memo that justifies the retrospective application of increased GST on old tenders.
3. Additionally, guidelines that ratify this fiscal change.

On the surface, these are public documents. Indeed, under the RTI Act, financial guidelines affecting public funds and private contractors count as matters of “wide public interest.” Yet, despite this, the Public Information Officer (PIO), DPRO Santosh Kumar, curtly rejected the response.

---

The “Other Department” Excuse: A GST Compliance Violation Under Section 6(3)

Specifically, on January 27, 2025, the PIO rejected the application with the remark: “महोदय प्रकरण अन्य विभाग से सम्बन्धित है” (Sir, the matter concerns another department).

Clearly, this response is not just unhelpful; it is also legally flawed, and it sits squarely within the pattern of illegal GST compliance failures this case documents. After all, the RTI Act anticipates that a citizen might not always know exactly which desk holds a specific file. Therefore, Section 6(3) of the Act mandates that when a PIO receives a request for information held by another public authority, they must transfer the application to that authority within five days and, subsequently, inform the applicant accordingly.

Because the DPRO of Mirzapur simply rejected the application rather than transferring it, he effectively shuttered the door on the citizen’s right to know. Moreover, as the appellant points out, the DPRO presides over the District Panchayat meetings and is therefore intrinsically linked to the financial workings of the department. Consequently, claiming the matter is “unrelated” appears, in fact, to be a strategic move to avoid disclosure.

---

The Failure of the First Appeal: Procrastination as a Tool

When the PIO fails, the law nonetheless provides a safety net: the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Specifically, in this case, the matter went before Deputy Director Satish Kumar.

According to the appeal records, a hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2025. However, the appellant alleges that the FAA merely “procrastinated.” Additionally, despite summoning the parties, the FAA delivered no information — a delay that only compounds the underlying GST compliance failure. Overall, this highlights a systemic issue in the RTI ecosystem: since the First Appeal is often presided over by a senior officer in the same department as the PIO, these officers often protect their subordinates rather than uphold the law, absent a strong sense of judicial duty.

Understandably, the appellant’s frustration is palpable. Indeed, he notes that this is not his first attempt; furthermore, previous applications (dating as far back as 2023) resulted in similar “transfer loops,” where the Directorate and the District office kept passing the buck without ever producing the documents.

---

Understanding Illegal GST Compliance: Why This Matters

Naturally, one might ask: why, then, would a department hesitate so strongly to share a Government Order regarding GST? In response, the appellant suggests a darker motive: the concealment of corruption. In many ways, this is where understanding illegal GST compliance becomes essential — because a department that hides its tax paperwork also hides who benefits from it.

Specifically, when tax rates change retrospectively on existing contracts, this opens the door for:

• Arbitrary Payments: For instance, without clear, public guidelines, the department can choose which contractors receive the “inflation” adjustment and which do not.
• Misuse of Funds: Similarly, because transparency is lacking in how the 6% tax difference is calculated and paid, a “grey zone” emerges where public money can be siphoned.
• Exploitation: Additionally, contractors may face coercion or unfair penalties if the rules of the game change after they sign the contract.

Consequently, by withholding the “circular or office memo” that enables this retrospective effect, the department, in effect, prevents any independent audit or public scrutiny of these transactions.

---

The Second Appeal: Seeking Justice for GST Compliance Violations

Therefore, having exhausted all departmental remedies, Yogi M. P. Singh has now moved the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Specifically, his prayer is twofold:

1. Access to Information: Consequently, the immediate release of the sought-after documents is imperative.
2. Penal Action: Consequently, invoking Section 20 of the RTI Act serves to penalize the PIO for “illegally” denying information, as well as holding the FAA accountable for dereliction of duty.

Notably, Section 20 is the only “teeth” the RTI Act has. Specifically, it allows the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) on PIOs who provide false information or, alternatively, obstruct the flow of data without reasonable cause.

---

Conclusion: Strengthening the Democratic Fabric

Ultimately, the case of Appeal No. A-20250401704 is more than just a dispute over a GST memo — instead, it is a litmus test for the state of democracy in Uttar Pradesh. Indeed, when public officials treat the RTI Act as a suggestion rather than a mandate, they foster an environment of “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos,” as the appellant poignantly describes.

In conclusion, understanding illegal GST compliance in cases like this one is not merely an academic exercise; it is a practical necessity for anyone dealing with government contracts. For a “healthy and prosperous democracy” to endure, the Information Commission must therefore act decisively. After all, transparency is not a favor the government grants to the citizen; rather, it is a debt the government owes.

---

Contact Details for the GST Compliance Case’s Public Authorities

Accordingly, based on the second appeal details and the official records for the Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur, here are the structured contact details for the concerned public authorities.

1. Public Information Officer (PIO)

Notably, this officer initially rejected the RTI request.

Detail	Information
Name	Santosh Kumar
Designation	District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), Mirzapur
Mobile Number	9415375150 (As per appeal) / 9415139308 (Dept. Directory)
Office Address	Panchayati Raj Department, District Mirzapur, UP – 231001
Email ID	dpromi-up@nic.in / amaprmi-up@nic.in

---

2. First Appellate Authority (FAA)

Subsequently, this officer presided over the first appeal hearing on 26/04/2025.

Detail	Information
Name	Satish Kumar (mentioned as Deputy Director)
Designation	Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayat), Mirzapur Division
Mobile Number	9457546534
Office Address	Old Panch Bhawan, Near DM Office, Kachehari, Mirzapur, UP
Email ID	ddprmi-up@nic.in

---

3. State Information Commission (UPIC)

Currently, this authority has the Second Appeal (A-20250401704) registered.

Detail	Information
Authority	Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow)
Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
Office Phone	0522-2724930
Web Link	upsic.up.gov.in
Email ID	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in

---

4. Technical Support & Portals

Additionally, for issues with online tracking of the application or appeal:

• RTI Online UP Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Helpline Email: onlinertihelpline-up@gov.in
• Technical Phone: 0522-7118629 (10:00 AM to 5:00 PM)

---

Summary Checklist for the GST Compliance Second Appeal

• Appeal Registration No: A-20250401704
• Applied Date: 30/04/2025
• Core Issue: Undoubtedly, there is an illegal denial of GST-related government orders, combined with significant procrastination by the FAA.
• Status Note: The Commission has officially registered the appeal. Since the PIO failed to transfer the request under Section 6(3), a strong ground exists for a penalty request under Section 20.

Therefore, to help track and manage this legal pursuit effectively, here is a consolidated list of all Application IDs, Registration Numbers, and Welcome IDs associated with the case against the Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur.

---

1. Commission & Appeal Identifiers (Understanding Illegal GST Compliance)

Specifically, these IDs represent the primary markers for the current legal standing with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

• Welcome ID (User ID):UPICR20240000149
  • Note: This unique identifier tracks all filings on the UPIC portal.
• Second Appeal Registration No:A-20250401704
  • Applied Date: 30/04/2025
• First Appeal Registration No:DIRPR/A/2025/60275
  • Applied Date: 17/03/2025

---

2. RTI Application History (Understanding Illegal GST Compliance)

Likewise, these IDs represent the ongoing attempts to obtain the specific GST compliance-related Government Orders.

Application Type	Registration Number	Date of Filing	Current Status
Current RTI 6(1)	DIRPR/R/2025/60094	23/01/2025	Rejected (on 27/01/2025)
Transaction ID	DIRPRR20250000000118	23/01/2025	Fee Payment Reference
Past Appeal (2023)	DIRPR/A/2023/60803	14/09/2023	Comments sought from PIO
Past RTI (2023)	DPTPR/R/2023/60409	06/03/2023	Transferred to Directorate
Transferred ID	DIRPR/R/2023/80583	16/03/2023	Active at Directorate level

---

3. Contact Directory for Public Authorities (Understanding Illegal GST Compliance)

Authority	Mobile Number	Email Address
PIO (DPRO Santosh Kumar)	9415375150	dpromi-up@nic.in
FAA (DD Satish Kumar)	9457546534	ddprmi-up@nic.in
UPIC Office (Lucknow)	0522-2724930	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
RTI Technical Support	0522-7118629	onlinertihelpline-up@gov.in

---

4. Key Web Links for Tracking

• UP Information Commission (Second Appeal Status):https://upsic.up.gov.in/
  • Go to “ऑनलाइन वाद की जानकारी” (Online Case Information) and enter Appeal No: A-20250401704.
• UP RTI Online Portal (RTI & First Appeal Status):https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
  • Use the “View Status” option with Registration No: DIRPR/R/2025/60094.

---

Next Step Recommendation for Resolving Illegal GST Compliance

In summary, because the PIO rejected the current RTI (DIRPR/R/2025/60094), claiming the matter belongs to another department but failing to transfer it as Section 6(3) requires, this failure, therefore, forms the strongest point for the Second Appeal.

Ultimately, would a drafted “Rejoinder” citing the PIO’s failure to follow Section 6(3), despite the previous 2023 attempts, help move this case forward? the PIO’s failure to follow Section 6(3), despite the previous 2023 attempts, help move this case forward?) despite your previous 2023 attempts?