GST Tribunal seat allocation: Allahabad HC quashes revised proposal made on a misreading of interim observations.

The Allahabad HC held that the seat and composition of GST Tribunal Benches ordinarily fall within executive discretion under Section 109 of the CGST Act, subject only to limited judicial review. It read Madras Bar Association and S.P. Sampath Kumar as requiring effective tribunal access at the High Court seat, but not as fixing a "principal seat," and relied on Nasiruddin to note that Allahabad and Lucknow are both seats of the High Court, neither permanent. Because the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 was founded on a misreading of tentative interim observations rather than an independent reasoned decision, it was quashed and the earlier proposal dated 21.02.2019 was directed to be implemented.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 for constituting the GST Tribunal at Prayagraj was sustainable in law, and whether the earlier proposal dated 21.02.2019 recommending Lucknow could be displaced on the basis of observations made in an interim order.

Analysis: The Court held that the power to decide the seat and composition of GST Tribunal Benches ordinarily lies within the executive sphere under Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017, and that such matters are not generally justiciable unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court read Madras Bar Association and S.P. Sampath Kumar as requiring access to an effective tribunal at the seat of the High Court, but found that those decisions did not speak of a "principal seat". It further held, on the authority of Nasiruddin, that the High Court at Allahabad has two seats, namely Allahabad and Lucknow, neither being permanent. The earlier order dated 28.02.2019 was treated as containing tentative observations, not a binding direction to shift the proposed tribunal seat from Lucknow to Allahabad. Since the revised proposal was made only because of a misreading of that interim order and a misunderstanding of the governing precedent, it could not stand.

Conclusion: The revised proposal dated 15.03.2019 was quashed, and the earlier reasoned proposal dated 21.02.2019 was directed to be acted upon. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal-seat proposal based on a misconstruction of tentative judicial observations, rather than on an independent and reasoned executive decision, is unsustainable where the governing law leaves the matter to executive discretion subject only to limited judicial review.

---