TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates IGST on Imported Oxygen Concentrators as Gifts</h1> <h3>Gurcharan Singh Versus Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Government Of India</h3> Gurcharan Singh Versus Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Government Of India - 2021 (376) E.L.T. 689 (Del.) , 2021 (49) G. S. T. L. 113 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Imposition of IGST on oxygen concentrators imported for personal use.2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution regarding the right to health and affordable treatment.4. Relief to the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. (i): Imposition of IGST on Oxygen Concentrators Imported for Personal UseThe petitioner, an 85-year-old individual, challenged the imposition of IGST on an oxygen concentrator gifted by his nephew. The State had issued several notifications to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including exempting oxygen concentrators from BCD but not from IGST for personal use. The notification dated 03.05.2021 exempted IGST for oxygen concentrators imported through a canalizing agency but not for individuals. This distinction was deemed 'manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable,' violating Article 14 of the Constitution as it created an artificial and unsustainable distinction between similarly circumstanced users based on the method of importation.Issue No. (ii) and (iii): Violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the ConstitutionThe right to health, a second-generation right flowing from the right to life under Article 21, requires the State to ensure affordable treatment, especially during extraordinary times like a pandemic. The Court emphasized that taxation must bend to equity in such times. The State failed to demonstrate that the revenue from IGST on personal imports of oxygen concentrators would outweigh the administrative costs of collection. The petitioner showed that the IGST imposed a 'distinct and noticeable burdensomeness,' directly impacting his right to health. The Court highlighted the State's positive obligation to take ameliorative measures to protect public health.Issue No. (iv): Relief to the PetitionerThe Court declared the imposition of IGST on oxygen concentrators imported as gifts for personal use unconstitutional, quashing the notification dated 01.05.2021. The Court held that individuals receiving oxygen concentrators as gifts should not be equated with commercial importers. The notification dated 03.05.2021 was preserved but interpreted to include oxygen concentrators under the exemption for life-saving drugs/medicines, supplied free of cost, under General Exemption No. 190. The cumbersome certification procedure under condition no. 104 was deemed impractical, and a letter of undertaking was deemed sufficient to prevent commercial misuse.Conclusion:The Court held that the imposition of IGST on oxygen concentrators received as gifts for personal use was unconstitutional, quashing the relevant notification. It mandated that individuals furnish a letter of undertaking to prevent commercial misuse, ensuring equitable treatment and upholding the right to health under Article 21. The Court's decision emphasized the need for a humanistic approach in times of calamity, aligning legal principles with societal needs.
TaxTMI 