The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council to urgently convene a meeting to consider reducing or abolishing the 18 per cent GST levied on air purifiers, taking into account the severe air pollution conditions prevailing in Delhi and surrounding regions.
The direction was issued while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the imposition of 18 per cent GST on air purifiers and seeking their classification as medical devices, which attract a lower tax rate. The petitioner argued that air purifiers play a critical role in safeguarding public health, particularly during periods of hazardous air quality, and therefore deserve concessional tax treatment.
At the outset, the High Court expressed its prima facie view that air purifiers could justifiably be taxed at 5 per cent GST. The court observed that, considering the nature of their function—facilitating cleaner air and aiding respiratory health—there appeared to be no valid reason to subject them to a higher tax rate.
Earlier in the day, the bench had orally remarked that the prevailing pollution levels in the national capital amounted to an “emergency” situation and that authorities should seriously consider granting GST relief on air purifiers. The matter was initially adjourned till 2:30 PM to allow the Union Government’s counsel to seek necessary instructions.
When the case was taken up after the lunch break, the counsel appearing for the Union Government submitted before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that decisions relating to GST rates fall within the policy domain of the GST Council. He emphasized that the Council is a pan-India constitutional body comprising representatives of all States and Union Territories and that any change in tax rates must follow the prescribed procedure.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar contended that air purifiers could easily be included under an existing notification issued in February 2020. He submitted that the notification, issued under Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, classifies certain devices as medical devices, on which GST is charged at the concessional rate of 5 per cent. According to the petitioner, air purifiers squarely fit within the spirit of this notification, given their role in enabling easier and safer breathing.
Responding to these submissions, the court orally observed that the matter might require coordination with the Ministry of Health, following which the GST Council could take up the issue. The bench indicated that it would direct the concerned nodal officer to place all relevant material, including the petitioner’s concerns, before the GST Council for consideration. The court further indicated that it expected the authorities to revert with clarity on the timeline for a decision within the next few days.
In its order, the High Court also took note of the petitioner’s reliance on a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Climate Change, which had been presented to both Houses of Parliament. The committee had recommended that the government either abolish or substantially reduce GST on air purifiers, recognizing their importance in mitigating the adverse health impacts of air pollution.
Issuing notice in the matter, the court observed that while it was conscious of the composition and nationwide character of the GST Council, the gravity of the air quality situation warranted urgent action. The bench stated that even if a physical meeting of the Council was not feasible at short notice, the matter could be taken up through video conferencing.
The court further noted that devices covered under the February 2020 notification attract GST at 5 per cent and reiterated that, given the function performed by air purifiers, there was no apparent justification for denying them similar treatment. On this basis, the court directed that the issue of lowering or abolishing GST on air purifiers be taken up and decided by the GST Council at the earliest.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 26, by which time the counsel for the concerned respondents is expected to inform the court about how soon the GST Council can convene and take an appropriate decision on the issue.
Case Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors
