TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... superannuation. 2) Mr. P. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners although presently posted in different departments of the Chief Commissioner's Office, are essentially the employees under the Chief Commissioner's Office, Shillong which is the parent body and cadre controlling authority and the posts held by the present petitioners are interchangeable from time to time. As such, the impugned decision of the respondents in shifting the Chief Commissioner Office from Shillong to Guwahati would adversely affect the petitioners and other employees' en-masse, besides amounting to changing the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioners. 3) The learned counsel also submits that the impugned action of the respondents in taking a decision to shift the office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax from Shillong to Guwahati is not in accordance with the proposal approved by the competent authority and Finance Ministry. He further submits that in the absence of any proposal supporting the decision of the respondent, the respondents could not have issued the impugned Notification dated 09.06.2017 and the impugned Circular dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7) The learned counsel further submits that the impugned notification dated 09.06.2017 issued by the respondent does not anywhere create/specify any Commissionerate at Guwahati in exercise of the power under Rule 3(1) of the Excise Rules, 2002 and corresponding exercise powers under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules without exercising the power under Rule 3(1) would render any such exercise and decision thereto as void and illegal and as such the impugned notification dated 09.06.2017, as well as the Circular dated 20.02.2019 being in violation of Rules and the mandate provided therein, is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 8) He also further submits that proposal (Annexures-5, 6 & 7 of the writ petition) are not merely an internal communication and instead are the final proposal/policy decision approved by the Finance Department and the competent authority and as such the impugned notification dated 09.06.2017, being not in accordance with the same is liable to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court. Further, to the contention of the respondents that the Audit Office, Shillong had already been shi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Office was proposed to be shifted from Shillong to Guwahati in order to provide better taxpayer accessibility and taxpayer services, which in turn would facilitate the objective of doing business with ease. He submits the re-organization has also resulted in the increase in the number of Commissionerates from 3 to 8, and in order to ensure better reach of the Department, new Commissionerates have been opened in Itanagar, Dimapur, Agartala, Aizawl and Imphal in addition to the existing Commissionerates of Guwahati, Dibrugarh and Shillong. (Annexure-1 Page-13 of the affidavit-in-opposition). As such, he submits the decision for shifting of the Chief Commissioner's Office from Shillong to Guwahati has been taken after detailed discussions keeping in view the aforesaid reasons as stated above. Learned senior counsel reiterates the submission that the same being a policy decision of the Government of India it cannot be subjected to judicial review. 12) With regard to the contention of the petitioners that the shifting was sought to be done in the absence of any order/notification from the Government, the learned senior counsel submits that the Notification No. 14/2002-CE (N.T) date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns were issued under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962 providing for Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs at Guwahati but the petitioners have challenged only the notifications under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned senior counsel submits that with the implementation of the GST separate Notifications were issued providing for Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs at Guwahati as follows: a) Notification No. 2/2017 (CE) dated 19.06.2017 issued under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Section 3 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. b) Notification No. 82/2017-Cus (N.T) dated 24.08.2017 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962. c) Notification No. 12/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 and No. 13/2017-CE (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 issued under Section 2 of the Central Excise act, 1944. Learned senior counsel submits that these separate Notifications, were issued under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. Learned counsel then concludes by submitting that the contentions of the petitioners that the action of the respondents is essentially affecting several employees, including ladies having families who are dependent on them, and such employees are facing undue hardships, many of whom are the verge of retirement are absolutely baseless and incorrect. 17. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel has placed reliance in the case of J.R. Raghupathy & Ors. vs. State of A.P &Ors. reported in (1998) 4 SCC 364 (Para 9 & 31) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has declined to interfere with the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal Headquarter at a particular place. The learned counsel has also placed reliance in the case of Union of India vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadadigara & Ors. reported in (2002) 10 SCC. (at Para 5), and in the case of Kailash Meghwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1982) SCC Online Raj 57,(at para 14). 18. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions and also have examined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner's Office, Shillong has been proposed to be shifted to Guwahati and culminated in the impugned Notification No. 13/2017 dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure 10). The change of events portrays that the proposed shifting is not in the absence of notifications indicating and notifying the shifting of merger of the Commissionerate. Another aspect that deserves attention of the Court, is that with the implementation of the GST, separate Notifications were issued under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962 providing for the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs to be integrated in Guwahati. It is to be noted also that the petitioners have not challenged the other Notifications, but have only challenged the Notifications issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The other separate Notifications providing for Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs are quoted herein below: a) Notification No. 2/2017 (CE) dated 19.06.2017 issued under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Section 3 of the Integrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitution. Unless the same is established, the said policy decision must be left to the Government to decide as to which policy should be adopted. The scope of judicial interference is extremely limited in matters of policy decision or exercise of jurisdiction by the Government, so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not apparent, and the Court will not substitute its own judgment in accessing the propriety of the decision of the Government if a second view is possible. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadadigara & Ors: (2002) 10 SCC 226 at Para 5 is quoted herein below: - "5. We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal mala fides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore, which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the court to decide. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties". "31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should b....