The Centre told the Delhi High Court that directing reduction of GST on air purifiers would be unconstitutional and violate the doctrine of separation of powers. It said Article 279A vests authority over GST decisions in the GST Council.
NEW DELHI: The Central government informed the Delhi High Court that judicial orders to lower the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers would be unconstitutional and infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers.
In an affidavit , the government contended that Article 279A of the Constitution designates the GST Council as the exclusive authority to make decisions regarding GST.
The government stated that setting tax rates involves a complex process of cooperative federalism, which necessitates consensus between the Union and the states, while also balancing competing fiscal interests.
Any judicial intervention in this matter would undermine the constitutionally mandated process, according to the government’s argument.
The government asserted,
“Any direction by this Hon’ble Court to modify GST rates, convene a meeting of the GST Council, or to compel the GST Council to consider or adopt a particular outcome, would amount to the Hon’ble Court stepping into the shoes of the GST Council, thereby, exercising functions that the Constitution has consciously and exclusively entrusted to the GST Council. Such an exercise would violate the doctrine of separation of powers and render the elaborate and well-defined constitutional role of the GST Council otiose,”
These statements were made in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to categorize air purifiers as ‘medical devices’ and reduce the GST on them from 18% to 5%.
The petition, filed by Advocate Kapil Madan, contended that air purifiers should not be considered a luxury due to the “extreme emergency crisis” caused by severe air pollution in Delhi.
During a hearing, the Court suggested that an urgent meeting of the GST Council should be convened to address the classification of air purifiers as ‘medical devices’ and to consider lowering the GST. The government counsel was instructed to find out how soon the GST Council could convene.
Following this, the government opposed the PIL, arguing that directing the GST Council would lead to unforeseen complications.
In a counter affidavit submitted through Advocate Akash Panwar, the government argued that the petitioner’s reference to the notification under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to justify a reduction in GST on air purifiers is misguided.
Additionally, the Central government claimed that classifying air purifiers as medical devices would subject their import, manufacturing, sale, stocking, and distribution to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Medical Device Rules, 2017, thereby regulating their availability in the market.
The affidavit referred the PIL as a “motivated attempt to secure regulatory reclassification under the guise of public interest,”
It also stated,
“Such a regulatory shift would have the effect to favour a limited class of entities possessing the requisite licences, registrations, and approvals, thereby creating conditions for monopoly rather than advancing public access. Thereby, in-turn, raising serious concerns as to who is really behind the institution of the present petition.”
The High Court is set to hear the case again on January 9.