Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Slashing GST on Air Purifiers

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday strongly questioned the Centre over its refusal to reduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on air purifiers, observing that when the state has failed to provide clean air, it should at least make air-purifying devices affordable for citizens.

Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the reclassification of air purifiers as medical devices, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya remarked, “We breathe 21,000 times a day—calculate the harm,” while expressing concern over the continued levy of 18 per cent GST during what it described as an air “emergency.”

The PIL urges that air purifiers be brought under the 5 per cent GST slab applicable to medical devices, citing Delhi’s persistent and hazardous air pollution levels. The bench also rejected the Centre’s request for more time to respond, questioning what “in due time” would mean when lives are at stake.

The court observed that every resident of the capital requires access to clean air and noted that the government’s inability to ensure this makes it imperative to ease access to air purifiers. The judges further suggested interim relief, asking why air purifiers could not be temporarily exempted from GST during periods of severe pollution by invoking emergency provisions.

The bench directed the government’s counsel to seek instructions and present a concrete proposal later in the day.

Filed by advocate Kapil Madan, the petition argues that air purifiers cannot be categorised as luxury items during an extreme public health crisis. It contends that access to clean indoor air has become essential for survival, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with respiratory illnesses.

The plea also points to a 2020 central notification defining medical devices, arguing that air purifiers perform a preventive and physiological support function by enabling safe respiration and reducing exposure to toxic pollutants. Levying the highest GST slab on such devices, the petitioner claims, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and disproportionate, especially when other health-related equipment attracts lower tax rates.

The matter raises broader questions on public health policy, taxation priorities, and the state’s responsibility during environmental emergencies.