Court No- 1

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

W.P.(C) No. 725/2017

Item m no -3
Case Title: NIPUN MALHOTRA VS UNION OF INDIA

Case details: The dispute between the petitioners and the respondents revolves around a
criminal matter.

Fact :- Here the petitioner argued that the tax imposed on these products, which included
wheelchairs, tricycles for the disabled, braille paper and braille watches, was patently
discriminatory. But the Court indicated that the scope of its power to review the levy was slender.
A decision to impose a tax, it said, was a matter of policy over which the judiciary ought not to
ordinarily interfere. In adjourning the case, it suggested that the petitioner exhaust his options by
submitting his grievances to the GST Council, which is the governing body responsible for
determining which products are taxed, and at what rate.

Court Observed: The application for intervention on behalf of Ms Manasi Joshi is allowed.The
application for impleading the GST Council is allowed. The amendment be carried out within a
period of two weeks. Notice shall issue to the newly impleaded respondent. Mr K K Venugopal,
Attorney General for India has, in pursuance of the previous hearing, assisted the Court. The
Learned Attorney General states that after a detailed discussion with the Secretary - Revenue, it
has been found that it may not be possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that an
exemption from tax be granted on ‘mobility devices’ because of the policy implications. However,
he submitted that the petitioner may move a representation before the GST Council. Mr Pinaki
Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the states that he would wish to press the
petition. However, he submitted that since the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has
been instituted in the public interest to safeguard the interests of a large number of similarly
situated disabled persons, who have to suffer a tax on mobility devices, at this stage he would
move a representation with the GST Council. The Attorney General states that there could be no
objection to the petitioner pursuing a representation. The counter affidavit(s) be filed within two
months. List the Writ Petition for final disposal, in March 2021.

Held by Court The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as
expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

SUBMITED BY :PRITIPURNA NAYAK