HC Rejects Plea to Include Petrol in GST, Citing Policy Prerogative of Council.
Issue
Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the GST Council to determine and fix a specific date for the inclusion of petroleum products (petrol and diesel) within the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime?
Facts
- Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed seeking a directive to bring petrol and diesel under the GST framework.
- Following a prior court direction, the GST Council had considered the matter and formally resolved that it was not an appropriate time for such an inclusion.
- The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the Council had a mandate to fix a date for the inclusion.
- The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to command the GST Council to take this action.
Decision
- The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, refusing to interfere.
- It held that the decision on when, or if, to include petroleum products under GST is a policy matter that falls entirely within the exclusive domain of the GST Council.
- The court ruled that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus, as there is no enforceable legal right for a citizen to demand the inclusion of a product under a specific tax law.
- Interfering in such a decision would be an unwarranted judicial overreach into the Council’s policy-making function.
Key Takeaways
- Separation of Powers: The judgment reinforces the principle that courts will not dictate policy. The “when” and “how” of taxation policy are functions of the executive and legislative bodies, not the judiciary.
- GST Council’s Autonomy: The ruling affirms the constitutional authority of the GST Council as the sole body responsible for making recommendations on GST policy.
- Limits of Mandamus: A writ of mandamus is a powerful remedy, but it can only be used to enforce a clear, pre-existing legal duty. It cannot be used to compel a discretionary policy action.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.K. Joseph
v.
Union of India
A.Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, JJ.
WP(C) NOS. 15055, 23325 & 28627 OF 2021
OCTOBER 9, 2025
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.23325/2021, 15055/2021, 28627/2021]
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.- These Public Interest Litigations are filed by the petitioners substantially seeking the relief of including the petrol and diesel under the GST regime so as to achieve a harmonized national market as contemplated under Article 279 (A) of the Constitution of India. These writ petitions were filed in the year 2021. This Court, in fact, passed an interim order as early as in W.P.(C) No.12481 of 2021 directing consideration of representation submitted by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23325 of 2021. Pursuant to the said direction, the Council took up the matter and decided as follows:
“E. In terms of the recent directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the issue of whether specified petroleum products should be brought within the ambit of GST was placed for consideration before the Council. After due deliberation, the Council was of the view that it is not appropriate to do so at this stage.”
This is questioned in these writ petitions.
2. This Court, by interim order dated 30.11.2021 observed as follows:
“2. Even though the matter was taken in the 45th GST Council meeting, three issues seemed to have been considered by the Council, for bringing the petroleum products under the GST regime, i.e., (i) the matter involves high revenue implications, (ii) requires larger deliberations and (iii) during pandemic times, it would be difficult to bring petroleum products under GST regime. We are not satisfied with the reasons. There should be some discussion and genuine reasons, as to why petroleum products cannot be brought under the GST regime”.
3. Subsequent to the passing of the interim order, respondents 1 and 3 filed a statement, wherein they referred to various judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts and contended that the petroleum products ought to be kept outside of GST regime.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23325 of 2021, referring to Article 279 (A) of the Constitution of India, submitted that the Council has been mandated to fix a date under the constitutional provision and therefore, the Council cannot wriggle out from the obligation to fix a date. He submitted that the Apex Court in Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India 1988 KHC 683 issued a mandamus to the Union Government directing the implementation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and there is no embargo for this Court issuing a direction to the GST Council to bring the petroleum products under the GST regime.
5. We are of the considered view that fixing a date is a prerogative of GST Council. This Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus inasmuch as there is no right conferred upon any citizen to command the GST Council to fix a date for inclusion of the petroleum products under the GST regime.
6. As the matter truly falls under the policy of the GST Council, this is not a matter within the domain of the Court to interfere by issuing a writ of mandamus. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in Aeltemesh Rein (supra) in fact relates to the right of Advocates to practice in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, which is a right acknowledged under the statutory provisions and nevertheless such a right is also qualified for acknowledgment under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
7. The matter completely falls within the domain of the GST Council’s policy, it is for them to decide whether to fix a date or not to fix a date. We have only considered this aspect from the perspective of the court interfering in the matter through a writ of mandamus directing the GST Council to take up the matter and take a decision. Therefore, declining the jurisdiction, these writ petitions are dismissed.