Recently, the Central government has informed the Delhi High Court that decisions on the rate, classification, or any reduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers lie solely within the jurisdiction of the GST Council, and that courts cannot issue directions in such matters without breaching constitutional limits.

In its detailed counter-affidavit opposing a PIL that seeks a reduction in GST on air purifiers and their recognition as “medical devices”, the Union government stated that the GST Council, constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution, is the sole constitutionally designated authority empowered to make recommendations on GST rates, exemptions, and classifications.

"The constitutional text leaves no scope for parallel, substitute, or competing recommendation-making by any other institution or authority in matters expressly entrusted to the GST Council," the Centre said.

"GST decisions, particularly on rates, are the outcome of a complex process of cooperative federalism, balancing competing fiscal interests of the Union and States. Judicial interference in such matters would necessarily bypass this constitutionally mandated process and disturb the federal equilibrium," the reply document added.

It further warned that issuing such directions would not only blur the constitutionally demarcated roles of the judiciary and the executive but would also undermine the institutional autonomy of the GST Council. The Centre maintained that compelling the Council to deliberate or arrive at a predetermined conclusion would interfere with the consultative and consensus-based mechanism envisioned under the GST framework, and would run contrary to the principles of cooperative federalism embedded in the Constitution.

Referring to the existing classification framework, the Centre stated that air purifiers are categorised under tariff heading 8421 and attract 18 per cent GST, while medical devices fall under tariff headings 9018 to 9022, which, following recent rationalisation by the GST Council, are taxed at a concessional merit rate of 5 per cent.

"Air purifiers are not taxed at the highest slab. They are subjected to 18 per cent GST, the highest slab being 40 per cent," the affidavit clarified.

"Entertaining the present petition at this stage would amount to parallel consideration of issues presently pending consideration in accordance with parliamentary procedure," the affidavit said.

At the previous hearing on December 26, a Vacation Bench of Justices Vikas Mahajan and Vinod Kumar granted the Centre ten days to file its counter-affidavit after Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, appearing for the Union government, sought time to place a detailed response on record.

During the hearing, ASG Venkataraman raised strong objections to the maintainability of the PIL filed by advocate Kapil Madan, arguing that the petition was “loaded” and had been instituted without impleading the Union Health Ministry, even though it sought directions with implications for public health policy.

"We had an urgent meeting yesterday. We have concerns with this PIL. We don't know who is behind this petition. This is not a PIL. Health department is not even a party," the Centre's law officer submitted.

Countering the Centre’s objections, the petitioner relied on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and contended that air purifiers were being wrongly taxed under an incorrect GST slab.