New Delhi : A bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan and Justice Vinod Kumar heard the matter after earlier directing that the GST Council consider an urgent meeting over the tax rate on air purifiers, in light of severe air pollution in Delhi, and the judges again pressed the Centre on why a quick decision could not be taken.
Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, appearing for the Centre, told the court that no emergency meeting of the GST Council had been convened to discuss GST on air purifiers because the procedure was complex, involved every state, and could not be completed in two days in response to a single petition, so the Centre required time to file a detailed affidavit.
The ASG explained that any change in GST on air purifiers had to move through a structured mechanism, stressing that the GST Council was a constitutional body handling a federal tax, that all states participated in its decisions, and that any voting on such matters, if needed, would have to be done in person and not rushed.
GST on air purifiers: Court questions delay and affordability
During Friday’s hearing, the bench referred to the ongoing pollution crisis in Delhi and nearby areas while pushing the Centre for answers, asking why an urgent decision on GST on air purifiers could not be taken when devices currently cost around Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000 and cheaper access could help ordinary residents breathe safer air.
The judges recalled that the petition, filed by advocate Kapil Madan, had already led the High Court on December 24 to ask the GST Council to urgently look at a possible tax reduction on air purifiers and to take a decision, and the bench again voiced concern about the impact of polluted air on people living in the national capital region.
Responding to the bench’s questions on GST on air purifiers, the ASG emphasised that the Centre could not bypass the established process, stating, “There is a process involved. How can this process be scuttled? GST Council is a constitutional body. This will open a Pandora’s box. A Parliamentary committee has recommended something to us. It will be considered, there is a process. The constitutional issue is involved. We are not saying anything. We are not saying whether it will be done or not.”
The court had pressed the government earlier, remarking, “The court’s concern was given the air situation in Delhi and surrounding areas. Why can’t it be done? Do whatever you have to do. Right now an air purifier costs 10-15K. Why not bring down the GST to a reasonable level where even a common man can afford an air purifier? What is the difficulty in GST council taking a call on this,” and the same concern continued to frame the exchanges on Friday.
GST on air purifiers: Centre questions PIL and medical device tag
On the demand to treat air purifiers as medical devices while changing GST on air purifiers, the ASG argued that the petition had not even made the Health Ministry a party, though that Ministry alone handled classification of medical devices after checking rules, licensing and regulatory conditions, and the GST Council had no power to declare any product a medical device.
The ASG criticised the structure of the plea and raised doubts about the motives behind it, saying, “See the prayers in the petition. The Health Ministry is not even a party and the prayer is to declare the air purifier as a medical device. The GST council cannot do that. We have gone through the rules, so much of the procedure, licencing etc. It’s heavily regulated. Who he wants to benefit, we don’t know. I see a lot of things in this petition is calculated. Give us time to file a detailed counter-affidavit,” while asking the court for more time.
GST on air purifiers: Finance Ministry review and next court date
The ASG also informed the bench that concerns about the PIL on GST on air purifiers had been examined at senior levels within the Finance Ministry and suggested that, if the petitioner agreed to treat the plea as a representation, the government could consider it, but if the petitioner wanted to continue litigation, the Centre would file a full counter-affidavit and wanted clarity on who was behind the writ petition.
During arguments, the ASG added, “This matter was deliberated at the highest level of the Finance Ministry. We have a few concerns about this PIL. If this can be converted as a representation, that’s fine. If the petitioner wants to contest it, we want to file a detailed counter affidavit. We want to know who is behind this writ petition. It is not a PIL at all,” and sought formal time to place these concerns on record.
