Judicial restraint in essential commodities and GST matters: policy choices and tax rates were not disturbed absent arbitrariness or confiscatory effect.

Judicial interference was declined in relation to both commodity control and GST on masks and sanitizers. The text states that inclusion or continuation of a commodity as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act is a policy matter dependent on availability and price, and no material showed the Government's view that masks and sanitizers were sufficiently available to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable; the mandamus request was refused. It also states that a tax rate challenge can succeed only where the levy is confiscatory, and no basis was shown to treat the GST on masks and sanitizers as confiscatory or otherwise unlawful; the request for reduction was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court should direct extension of the notification and inclusion of masks and sanitizers as essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (ii) Whether the Court should direct reduction of GST on masks and sanitizers.

Issue (i): Whether the Court should direct extension of the notification and inclusion of masks and sanitizers as essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: The decision to include or continue commodities as essential commodities was treated as a matter of policy dependent on considerations such as availability and price. The materials showed that the earlier notification had not been extended because the Government considered masks and sanitizers to be sufficiently available and no longer requiring price control. No material was produced to show that this assessment was erroneous, arbitrary, or manifestly unreasonable.

Conclusion: The request for mandamus was rejected and the relief was refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should direct reduction of GST on masks and sanitizers.

Analysis: A challenge to the rate of tax can succeed only if the levy is shown to be confiscatory in nature. No basis was shown to establish that the existing GST rate on masks and sanitizers was confiscatory or otherwise unlawful. A mere assertion that the rate was excessive was insufficient to justify judicial interference.

Conclusion: The request for reduction of GST was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for judicial interference with either the policy decision on essential commodities or the tax rate on masks and sanitizers, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not interfere with a governmental policy decision on commodity control unless it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable, and a tax rate will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is confiscatory.

---