GST on Air Purifiers in Delhi: High Court Urges Tax Cut Amid Public Health Crisis

The Delhi High Court has urged the Goods and Services Tax Council to urgently reconsider the 18 percent GST imposed on medical-grade air purifiers, observing that high taxation on protective health devices may restrict access during a public health emergency.

The direction came while the Court was hearing a public interest litigation challenging the current GST on air purifiers in Delhi. Taking judicial notice of the capital’s deteriorating air quality, the Court described the situation as “severe” and emphasised that fiscal policy cannot be blind to public health realities. The bench asked the Union government to review the tax structure “at the earliest”, setting the stage for a possible policy shift.

The case has drawn attention to how indirect taxation intersects with environmental conditions and public health needs, particularly in cities grappling with persistent air pollution.

Air Pollution and the Rising Dependence on Protective Devices

Delhi’s air quality has repeatedly ranked among the worst in the world, especially during winter months. High concentrations of particulate matter such as PM2.5 and PM10 routinely exceed safe limits prescribed by health authorities. Prolonged exposure has been linked to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and long-term health complications.

Against this backdrop, air purifiers have increasingly been seen as essential protective devices rather than lifestyle products. Medical-grade air purifiers, in particular, are used in homes, schools, hospitals, and clinics to reduce indoor exposure to harmful pollutants.

The PIL before the Court argued that imposing an 18 percent GST on such devices effectively categorises them as luxury or non-essential goods, despite their growing relevance to public health.

The Legal Challenge to GST on Air Purifiers in Delhi

The petition challenged the classification of air purifiers under the GST regime, contending that the tax rate was disproportionate given Delhi’s environmental conditions. It was submitted that the GST on air purifiers in Delhi creates an economic barrier for vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

During the hearing, the Court examined whether fiscal measures should take into account extraordinary environmental circumstances. While taxation policy is ordinarily within the executive’s domain, the bench noted that courts are not powerless when taxation intersects with fundamental concerns such as health and life.

The Court did not strike down the tax but chose a measured approach by urging the GST Council to review the rate urgently.

Court’s Observations on Accessibility and Public Health

In its observations, the Court highlighted that high taxation on protective devices could “unduly limit accessibility”. This remark underscored a key concern in the case: affordability.

Medical-grade air purifiers are already costly for many households. An additional 18 percent GST further increases the financial burden, potentially excluding lower and middle-income groups from accessing basic protection against hazardous air.

By linking tax policy to accessibility, the Court framed the issue as one of public health equity rather than mere revenue considerations. The GST on air purifiers in Delhi was thus examined through the lens of health outcomes rather than consumer choice.

GST Council and the Scope of Review

The GST Council, a constitutional body comprising representatives of the Union and the states, is responsible for determining GST rates. While courts do not ordinarily interfere in its decisions, judicial observations can influence policy deliberations.

By directing the Centre to review the GST on air purifiers in Delhi “at the earliest”, the High Court placed the issue squarely before the Council. Any change would require consensus or majority support within the Council framework.

The Court’s approach reflects judicial restraint, stopping short of mandating a tax cut while clearly signalling the urgency of reconsideration in light of environmental realities.

Public Health Considerations in Fiscal Policy

The case highlights a broader theme emerging in Indian jurisprudence: the integration of public health considerations into areas traditionally viewed as economic or administrative policy.

Air pollution has increasingly been treated as a public health emergency rather than a mere environmental nuisance. Courts have, in recent years, passed orders on issues ranging from vehicular emissions to industrial pollution, often citing the right to life and health.

The GST on air purifiers in Delhi became part of this evolving narrative, where taxation is examined not only for legality but also for its real-world impact on citizens’ ability to protect their health.

Medical-Grade Versus Consumer Appliances

A key aspect raised during the proceedings was the distinction between medical-grade air purifiers and consumer appliances. Petitioners argued that medical-grade devices are designed to meet specific health standards and are often recommended by doctors for patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or compromised immunity.

Treating such devices on par with consumer electronics for taxation purposes, it was argued, fails to recognise their role in disease prevention and management. The Court’s observations appeared to accept the premise that not all air purifiers are mere comfort products, particularly in a city facing chronic air quality crises.

This distinction could become central if the GST Council decides to reclassify or reduce the tax rate on certain categories of air purifiers.

Environmental Crisis as a Judicially Recognised Fact

The Court’s reference to Delhi’s “severe” air quality is significant. Indian courts have increasingly taken judicial notice of environmental data, reports, and seasonal pollution patterns.

By grounding its observations in the reality of persistent pollution, the High Court avoided abstract reasoning and focused on lived conditions. The GST on air purifiers in Delhi was thus assessed against an acknowledged environmental crisis rather than theoretical assumptions.

This factual grounding strengthens the Court’s call for urgency and underscores why the issue cannot be treated as routine tax policy.

Potential Policy Outcomes

While the Court has not directed an immediate reduction or abolition of GST, its order opens several possible outcomes:

• Reduction of GST on medical-grade air purifiers

• Temporary tax relief during peak pollution months

• Reclassification of air purifiers as health or safety equipment

• Retention of the current rate with additional government subsidies

Any of these outcomes would mark a shift in how health-related appliances are treated under the GST framework.

The Court’s intervention ensures that public health considerations are formally placed on the policy agenda.

Judiciary’s Role in Pollution Mitigation

The case also reflects the judiciary’s broader role in pollution mitigation. From ordering restrictions on construction activities to regulating firecracker use, courts have often stepped in where executive action is perceived as slow or insufficient.

By addressing the GST on air purifiers in Delhi, the High Court expanded this role into the fiscal domain, without overstepping constitutional boundaries. The emphasis remained on urging review rather than dictating outcomes.

This approach aligns with a pattern of judicial nudges aimed at prompting administrative action in areas affecting health and environment.

Looking Ahead

The High Court’s order has ensured that the issue of GST on air purifiers in Delhi receives urgent consideration at the highest policy-making level. Whether the GST Council responds with a rate cut or other relief measures remains to be seen.

What is clear is that the intersection of taxation, environmental conditions, and public health is likely to receive greater judicial attention in the future. As cities across India grapple with pollution, similar challenges to fiscal policies affecting health-related goods may emerge.

For now, the Delhi High Court’s observations stand as a reminder that in times of environmental crisis, economic policy cannot be divorced from the lived realities of public health.