IGST on gifted oxygen concentrators was struck down where channel-based exemption created unconstitutional inequality and burdened access to health care.

IGST on oxygen concentrators imported by individuals as gifts for personal use was treated as constitutionally unsustainable where canalised imports for COVID relief were exempted. The court held that the channel-based classification was artificial and violated Article 14 because similarly placed recipients were treated unequally in a public health emergency. It also recognised that Article 21 requires the State to justify tax burdens that affect access to life-saving medical equipment and health protection. The impugned notification was quashed, while limited consequential safeguards against misuse could be imposed through an undertaking.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy of IGST on oxygen concentrators imported by individuals as gifts for personal use, while exempting canalised imports for COVID relief, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether Article 21 of the Constitution of India required the State, in the context of a pandemic, to justify the burden of the tax with reference to public interest and the right to health. (iii) Whether the impugned notification could be sustained, and what relief could be granted.

Issue (i): Whether the levy of IGST on oxygen concentrators imported by individuals as gifts for personal use, while exempting canalised imports for COVID relief, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification drawn by the impugned notifications separated two sets of identically placed users solely on the basis of the channel of import. Individuals who received oxygen concentrators free of cost for personal use were excluded, whereas imports routed through a State Government or authorised agency were fully exempt. In the setting of a public health emergency, the distinction was held to be artificial, unreasonable, and unsupported by any adequate determining principle. The notification also treated persons who were otherwise similarly situated in a manifestly unequal manner.

Conclusion: The levy, as applied to individual recipients of gifted oxygen concentrators for personal use, was held to be violative of Article 14 and unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether Article 21 of the Constitution of India required the State, in the context of a pandemic, to justify the burden of the tax with reference to public interest and the right to health.

Analysis: The right to life was treated as encompassing the right to health and access to affordable treatment, and the State was held to bear a positive obligation to take ameliorative measures to protect health. In extraordinary times, the impact of taxation on citizens' ability to secure life-saving medical equipment was treated as constitutionally relevant. The State did not show that the revenue likely to be collected from such imports outweighed the burden of collection or that the impost meaningfully advanced public welfare in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 21 succeeded to the extent that the tax burden on such imports could not be justified in the prevailing conditions.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned notification could be sustained, and what relief could be granted.

Analysis: The Court declined to issue a mandamus compelling the State to grant an exemption, but held that it could judicially review the exemption already granted and save the broader beneficial scheme. Oxygen concentrators were treated as medical equipment falling within the protective sweep of the exemption framework, and the certification condition was held impractical in the circumstances. The appropriate relief was therefore declaratory and consequential: the impugned notification had to be set aside, while safeguards against misuse could be imposed through an undertaking.

Conclusion: The impugned notification was quashed, and the petition succeeded with limited consequential directions.

Final Conclusion: The levy of IGST on individual imports of gifted oxygen concentrators for personal use could not stand constitutional scrutiny in the pandemic context, and the impugned notification was set aside with protective directions to prevent misuse.

Ratio Decidendi: In an extraordinary public-health emergency, a tax exemption classification that excludes identically placed individual recipients of life-saving medical equipment solely because the import is not routed through a canalising agency is manifestly arbitrary under Article 14, and the burden of the tax must also be tested against the State's positive obligation to protect health under Article 21.

---