The development of autonomous or remote-controlled mobility aids will not be possible for the general public as they will be out of reach and too expensive for many. The GST levy on mobility aids places a prohibitive burden on the ability of disabled citizens to lead a dignified life while posing minimalistic benefits for developing countries because of the inexpensive production of such devices. This will cause tremendous social displacement and economic inequality within these communities.
On October 27, 2020 the Supreme Court of India heard brief arguments on the constitutional validity of the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on mobility aids used by disabled citizens.
The petitioner, in Nipun Malhotra vs. Union of India, 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.
At first blush, this approach seems reasonable. But should the GST Council reject the petitioner’s plea, it would be imprudent of the Court not to test the legitimacy of the levy.
Much as it might be keen to ensure that the judiciary does not sit on judgment over matters that fall within the domain of legislative and executive competence, it must recognise that there is nothing inherently distinct about taxing laws; they are in no way plenary and unamenable to judicial review.
Quite to the contrary, taxes have a direct bearing on how society is arranged. The nature and rate of tax imposed on a product can impinge both on a person’s freedom and on a person’s right to be treated with equal care and concern.
Protecting the Fundamental rights: Taxes directly affect the economic well-being of individuals and of families, their standard of living, their ability to make ends meet, their ability to plan for the future. They influence what types of goods and services are available to them, where they can shop for those goods and services, whether or not they can take advantage of favorable sales and promotional periods, whether or not they can afford to make major purchases on each shopping trip.
Promotes inequality: The tax places a prohibitive burden on the ability of disabled citizens to access the most basic goods, to lead lives with dignity.
To Validate the legitimacy: When the GST Council reject the petitioner’s plea, it would be irrational of the Court not to test the legitimacy of the levy.
International Precedence: The top courts in Canada and Colombia have recently came up to examine whether or not an imposition of a tax violates a fundamental right.
Does not affect separation of powers: Taxing laws are very much similar to ordinary laws where judiciary has the power of judicial review and it doesn’t obstruct legislative and executive competence.