The Central government has strongly defended its position on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on air purifiers, telling the Delhi High Court that decisions regarding tax rates, classification, and any reductions fall exclusively within the domain of the GST Council. In a detailed counter-affidavit filed in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to lower the GST rate and reclassify air purifiers as medical devices, the Union government emphasized that the GST Council, constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution, is the sole constitutionally designated authority empowered to make recommendations on such fiscal matters.
The affidavit argued that judicial intervention in setting GST rates or directing the Council to adopt specific outcomes would be constitutionally impermissible and would violate the principles of cooperative federalism and separation of powers. It stated that courts have consistently held they should not substitute themselves for designated decision-makers, particularly in areas involving complex economic policy and fiscal structuring. The government cautioned that any court order compelling a GST rate change, convening a Council meeting, or dictating recommendations would bypass the carefully balanced constitutional mechanism designed to accommodate the competing interests of the Union and the States.
On the issue of classification, the Centre clarified that air purifiers are correctly placed under tariff heading 8421, attracting an 18 percent GST rate, while medical devices fall under different headings (9018 to 9022) that carry a lower merit rate of 5 percent following recent rationalization by the GST Council. The government pointed out that 18 percent is not the highest GST slab—reserved at 40 percent—and that the matter is already under active consideration through parliamentary channels, including recommendations from the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests, and Climate Change.
Also Read: Delhi HC Seeks CBI Reply on Tejashwi Yadav’s Plea in IRCTC Scam Case
The affidavit further described the PIL as a “colorable and motivated attempt” to achieve regulatory reclassification under the guise of public health and accessibility concerns. It argued that reclassifying air purifiers as medical devices could inadvertently restrict public access, create monopolistic conditions, and serve objectives beyond genuine environmental or health relief. The Centre maintained that entertaining the petition at this stage would amount to parallel consideration of issues already being addressed through established parliamentary procedures.
The matter, which has seen earlier observations from the Delhi High Court urging consideration of a reduced GST rate in light of severe air pollution in Delhi-NCR, is scheduled for hearing tomorrow. During previous proceedings, the court had remarked on the need for a counter-affidavit before issuing final directions, while the Centre had raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the PIL, including the absence of the Union Health Ministry as a party. The government's firm stance underscores the ongoing tension between judicial concern over public health and the constitutional limits on interference in tax policy decisions.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks CBI Reply on Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Plea Challenging IRCTC Scam Charges