Table of Contents

Vodafone Idea Ltd v. CPC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Vodafone Idea Ltd v. CPC (Delhi High Court, 2024-03-14) WP(C) 4567/2024 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section §245 ITA. §245 IT adjustment without prior intimation is procedurally void. Adjustment of refund against disputed demand under §245 of the Income Tax Act 1961 without proper prior intimation in writing is procedurally void.

Holding

§245 IT adjustment without prior intimation is procedurally void.

Ratio

Adjustment of refund against disputed demand under §245 of the Income Tax Act 1961 without proper prior intimation in writing is procedurally void. Refund directed to be released with interest under §244A.

Section(s) applied

Practitioner takeaway

§245 ITA + RTI for §245 intimation copy.

Citation

Why this case matters for citizens

This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.

Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds

  1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
  2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
  3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
  4. Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Citing this ruling in your appeal

Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.

Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.

, , , ,