Centre opposes PIL in Delhi High Court seeking lower GST on air purifiers: 'Will open pandora's box'

The bench accepted the Centre’s request for time and directed the Union government to file a detailed counter affidavit within 10 days. (Image: Canva)

• Centre opposes PIL for GST cut on air purifiers, citing constitutional issues
• Court questions air purifier affordability amid Delhi pollution crisis
• Next hearing set for January 9, 2026; Centre to file counter affidavit

Did our AI summary help?

The Centre on Friday flagged “serious constitutional concerns” before the Delhi High Court while opposing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking reduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers from 18 percent to 5 percent, arguing that the plea was “loaded” and could open a “pandora’s box”.

Appearing for the Union government, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman told a vacation bench headed by Justice Vikas Mahajan that the petition could not be treated as a genuine PIL and questioned both its intent and maintainability. “We don’t know who is behind this PIL. This is not a PIL. Health department is not even a party and a direction is sought,” he submitted, adding that “somebody wants a monopoly in air purifiers, we don’t know.”

The petition, filed by advocate Kapil Madan, seeks directions to classify air purifiers as medical devices and reduce GST from 18 percent to 5 percent in view of worsening air quality in Delhi and neighbouring regions.

Madan appeared in person and argued that air purifiers were wrongly taxed under an incorrect category. “On a bare reading of the notification itself I will be able to demonstrate that they are taxing air purifiers under a wrong category,” he told the court.

The ASG contended that GST policy decisions fall exclusively within the domain of the GST Council, a constitutional body comprising representatives of all states and Union territories. “There is a process involved. How can this process be scuttled? GST council is a constitutional body… If anything has to be voted, it can only be done physically,” he said, referring to Regulation 14 of the Council’s procedure.

Questioning the prayer to declare air purifiers as medical devices, the ASG said, “Health ministry is in charge which is not even party here… It’s heavily regulated. Who does he want to benefit, we don’t know.”

He also submitted that the matter was already under consideration, pointing out that a parliamentary standing committee had passed a proposal on December 12 to examine the GST issue.

The court, however, repeatedly underscored its concern over affordability amid a public health crisis. “The court’s concern was that having regard to the pollution in Delhi and surrounding areas, why GST should not be reduced to 5 percent. The price range starting from 10–12k goes to 60k, it is beyond reach of common man,” Justice Mahajan observed.

Madan countered the Centre’s allegations, stating, “I am saying I am not even touching my petition. This is a simple process… Not only is clean air taxed, it is being taxed wrongly.”

He also pointed to a February 2020 notification extending the Drugs and Cosmetics Act framework to medical devices, arguing that air purifiers fell within Schedule I. "I am saying a bare reading of the notification it is clear that purifiers fall under Schedule 1 and they are charging it under Schedule 2," he said.

Clarifying the scope of judicial intervention, the court said it was not expressing a final view. “That court can’t say without calling for counter affidavit. It’s only a prima facie view of the court,” Justice Mahajan said.

The Court said that he submission from the Centre is that it is not a medical device.

"Mr Madan the entire essence of the order is that a call has to be taken by the GST Council and that since it's a pan India body, the meeting may be held virtually. That's the sum and substance of the order," the Court said.

The Court asked the ASG what is the dificulty in GST council taking a call. "Whatever you are saying they can also say," it said.

ASG Venkataraman responded, "this will open a pandora's box. Parliamentary committee has recommended something to us. It will be considered, there is a process. We are not saying anything. Either we will reduce or not. I am not giving any commitment. We are scared from constitutional perceptive. Let this be converted into representation and sent to council."

The bench accepted the Centre’s request for time and directed the Union government to file a detailed counter affidavit within 10 days, with a rejoinder thereafter. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 9, 2026.