HC refuses to vacate policy decision of Govt
SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya on Friday ruled that an option should be given to the staff to go to Guwahati, or to be accommodated in other Central Excise and Customs Office in Shillong, to avoid any forced dislocation in view of the shifting of office of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax to Guwahati.
During the hearing on Friday, the court of Justice HS Thangkhiew, however, dismissed the petition by saying that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the authorities to shift the office as it is the policy decision of the government.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the authorities 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.
The notification in this regard was issued on June 9, 2017 and the circular on February 20 directed for shifting of the Chief Commissioner’s Office from Shillong to Guwahati.
However, the counsel for the Central government said that in the changed scenario, the Chief Commissioner’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. The counsel submitted the re-organization has also resulted in the increase in the number of Commissionerate from 3 to 8, and in order to ensure better reach of the Department, new Commissionerate have been opened in Itanagar, Dimapur, Agartala, Aizawl and Imphal in addition to the existing Commissionerate of Guwahati, Dibrugarh and Shillong.
The counsel also said the decision to shift the Commissioner’s Office from Shillong to Guwahati is a policy decision of the government and it cannot be subjected to judicial review.
The court order said the action of the Centre cannot be said to meet any of the conditions, which would warrant interference by the 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”, the order said .
According to the court, 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”.