loader image

Clean Air Is a Facet of Right to Life; Delhi HC Pulls Up Centre Over 18% GST on Air Purifiers

Clean Air Is a Facet of Right to Life; Delhi HC Pulls Up Centre Over 18% GST on Air Purifiers

GST on air purifiers

The Delhi High Court has strongly questioned the Central Government over the continued imposition of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers, observing that when authorities are unable to ensure clean air for citizens, the least they can do is make life-saving protective devices more affordable.

The observations were made by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Kapil Madan against the Union of India and other authorities, seeking reclassification of air purifiers as “medical devices” and reduction of GST to a concessional rate.

The petitioner contended that air purifiers squarely fall within the expanded statutory definition of “medical devices” under Rule 3(zb) of the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, read with Notification S.O. 648(E) dated 11 February 2020 issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was argued that the 2020 notification broadened the scope of medical devices from a narrow, item-based classification to a purpose-based framework, covering devices intended for prevention, monitoring, treatment, or alleviation of disease through non-pharmacological or mechanical means.

Drawing parallels with oxygen concentrators and pulse oximeters both recognised as medical devices by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), the petitioner submitted that air purifiers equipped with HEPA filtration perform equally critical preventive and protective functions.

The plea further assailed the GST framework as arbitrary and discriminatory, pointing out that while most medical devices are taxed at a concessional rate of 5%, air purifiers continue to be treated as non-essential household appliances and taxed at the highest slab of 18%. This differential treatment, it was argued, lacks any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with public health objectives and fails the constitutional test under Article 14 .

The PIL has been filed by Advocate Kapil Madan. Sr Adv Arvind Nayar appeared in the matter.