Court quashes revised GST Tribunal proposal, reinstates original plan. Executive directed to fill vacant posts promptly.

The court quashed the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 and directed that the original proposal dated 21.02.2019 should be acted upon for constituting the GST Tribunal. The court emphasized that tribunals should be established at every place where there is a seat of the High Court. Additionally, the court highlighted the Executive's jurisdictional authority in establishing tribunal benches and directed the filling of vacant posts in various tribunals and forums within twelve weeks to prevent further prejudice and difficulties for litigants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 for constituting the GST Tribunal at Prayagraj.
2. Legality of the original proposal dated 21.02.2019 for constituting the GST Tribunal at Lucknow.
3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in the Madras Bar Association case regarding the location of tribunals.
4. Jurisdictional authority of the High Court regarding the establishment of tribunal benches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Revised Proposal Dated 15.03.2019:
The revised proposal dated 15.03.2019, which suggested constituting the GST Tribunal at Prayagraj instead of Lucknow, was primarily based on the interim order of the High Court dated 28.02.2019. The court noted that the revised proposal was a misreading and misconstruction of the observations made in the case of Madras Bar Association and a misunderstanding of the existence of two seats of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The court concluded that the revised proposal was not sustainable on facts and in law.

2. Legality of the Original Proposal Dated 21.02.2019:
The original proposal dated 21.02.2019, which recommended constituting the GST Tribunal at Lucknow, was a reasoned and considered decision by the State Government. It took into account all relevant factors, including the previous functioning of the Tribunal with its headquarters at Lucknow and the location of government machinery related to tax collection. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify revisiting this proposal and deemed it valid.

3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's Decision in the Madras Bar Association Case:
The court examined whether the Supreme Court's decision in the Madras Bar Association case mandated that tribunals should be established at the 'principal seat' of the jurisdictional High Court. The court found that the Supreme Court's decision did not use the term "Principal Seat" but referred to the "Seat of the High Court." The decision emphasized that tribunals should be established at every place where there is a seat of the High Court, ensuring convenience and expediency for litigants.

4. Jurisdictional Authority of the High Court:
The court highlighted that the issue of where to establish tribunal benches falls within the domain of the Executive as per Section 109 of the CGST Act and is not ordinarily justiciable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Lalit Kumar, which stated that setting up permanent and circuit benches of a tribunal should not be the subject of judicial consideration unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The court found no such extraordinary circumstances in this case.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 and directed that the original proposal dated 21.02.2019 should be acted upon. The GST Benches should be constituted accordingly within three months. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure that vacant posts in various tribunals and forums are filled within twelve weeks to prevent further prejudice and difficulties for litigants.

---