2019 (10) TMI 555 - HC - GST

Territorial Jurisdiction - shifting of Office - shifting of the Chief Commissioner s Office from Shillong to Guwahati - HELD THAT - The decision making process in arriving at the decision to shift the Chief Commissioner s Office from Shillong to Guwahati does not suffer from arbitrariness, nor can the same be said to have been done irrationally or unreasonably. The duty of the Courts in exercise of powers of judicial review over administrative action is to determine whether the action and to see that the same is not illegal, irrational or vitiated by procedural impropriety and that administrative action must be seen to have been done fairly, impartially and reasonably. In the instant case, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be said to meet any of the conditions, which would warrant interference by this Court and the decision making process cannot be faulted with. The stated position also being that the same being a policy decision, it is a settled law that a policy decision will not be interfered in a routine manner unless the policy is contrary to the provisions of statutory rules or in violation of provisions of the Constitution. Unless the same is established, the said policy decision must be left to the Government to decide as to which policy should be adopted. In the case of KAILASH MEGHWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS 1982 (11) TMI 180 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that the establishment of circle office of PHED or its shifting from one district to another is neither a matter of prima facie judicial, nor legislature domain and none is concerned in such matters because it is neither legislative nor judicial. As executive or administrative decision simpliciter cannot be put to judicial review . With regard to the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the shifting of the Chief Commissioner s Office from Shillong to Guwahati, this aspect need not be considered in view of the discussions made herein above on other issues. However, with regard to dislocation of the petitioners and other staff working in the Chief Commissioner s Office, on the basis of the submissions advanced by the respondents, it is directed that an option shall be given to the concerned staff to opt for Guwahati, or to be accommodated in other Central Excise and Customs Office in Shillong, to avoid any forced dislocation. There being no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents and the decisions arrived at being in pursuant to policy and in public interest, the writ petition being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned notification and circular regarding the shifting of the Chief Commissioner’s Office from Shillong to Guwahati.
2. Violation of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Impact on the terms and conditions of the petitioners' employment.
4. Authority of the respondent No. 3 to issue the impugned circular.
5. Validity of the policy decision to shift the office.
6. Locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the shifting.
7. Potential forced dislocation of staff.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Impugned Notification and Circular:
The petitioners challenged the notification No. 13/2017 Central Excise (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 and Circular dated 20.02.2019, arguing they were issued without proper authority and violated the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondents countered that the decision was a policy decision of the Central Government, not subject to judicial review, and was aimed at re-organizing the Central Excise and Service Tax formations to implement the GST regime efficiently.

2. Violation of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The petitioners argued that the impugned notification and circular were in violation of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The court noted that the notifications issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and other related Acts provided for the Chief Commissioner’s Office to be located in Guwahati. The court found no violation of the rules as the decision was backed by proper notifications.

3. Impact on Terms and Conditions of Employment:
The petitioners contended that shifting the office would adversely affect their terms and conditions of employment, particularly for those nearing superannuation. The respondents assured that no employee would be forced to relocate without consent and options would be provided to accommodate them in other offices in Shillong.

4. Authority of Respondent No. 3:
The petitioners argued that respondent No. 3 exceeded their jurisdiction by issuing the circular. The court found that the circular was an implementation instruction based on the policy decision and notifications issued by the Government of India, thus within the respondent's authority.

5. Validity of the Policy Decision:
The court emphasized that policy decisions of the government, especially those aimed at public interest and organizational efficiency, are not subject to judicial review unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or violate statutory provisions. The decision to shift the office was found to be reasonable, aimed at improving taxpayer services and accessibility in the North Eastern States, particularly given Assam's significant share of GST assessees and revenue.

6. Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
The respondents questioned the petitioners' locus standi, arguing they were not directly affected as they were not employees of the Chief Commissioner’s Office. The court, however, did not delve deeply into this issue, focusing instead on the legality and rationality of the decision itself.

7. Potential Forced Dislocation of Staff:
The court directed that staff should be given the option to either relocate to Guwahati or be accommodated in other offices in Shillong to avoid forced dislocation. The respondents confirmed that no employee would be relocated without their consent.

Conclusion:
The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision to shift the Chief Commissioner’s Office from Shillong to Guwahati. The decision was deemed a policy matter aimed at public interest and organizational efficiency, thus not warranting judicial interference. The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.