Nitin Bhasin vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court held that it cannot issue a mandamus directing the legislature to frame a law in a particular manner. Therefore, the prayer to direct the respondents to classify alcohol-based hand sanitizers under Schedule 'K' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, could not be granted. Similarly, the Court could not issue a mandamus directing the Department of Revenue to fix a uniform GST rate for sanitizers, as this falls within the domain of policy and legislative action. The Court noted that it is settled law that such directions cannot be issued. The Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India submitted that if the petitioner files any representation expressing his concerns, it would be forwarded to the relevant authorities for consideration in accordance with law. The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a representation.
Facts
The petitioner, Nitin Bhasin, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking several directions related to alcohol-based hand sanitizers. The reliefs sought included directing the respondents to classify alcohol-based hand sanitizers under Schedule 'K' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, permitting wider distribution and sale, and directing the Department of Revenue to ensure uniform GST rates for similar products like sanitizers. The petition was heard via video conferencing. The Additional Solicitor General appeared for the Union of India.
Key Issues
1. Whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the legislature to frame a law in a particular manner, specifically concerning the classification of alcohol-based hand sanitizers under Schedule 'K' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940? (Question of law). The petitioner argued for the classification of sanitizers under Schedule 'K' and for uniform GST rates. The respondents, through the Additional Solicitor General, did not present arguments on the merits of the classification or GST rate but stated that any representation filed by the petitioner would be forwarded to the authorities for consideration. The court's reasoning focused on its inability to direct legislative action.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-PIL No. 61 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 02.06.2020
Nitin Bhasin
…..Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE.
Present:- Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate-petitioner in person.
Mr. S.P.Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate, for Union of India.
* * * *
RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J. (ORAL)
With the consent of the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents, the matter is being taken up and heard via video conferencing (Webex App software).
This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:- i) Issue of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to direct, the alcohol based hand “Sanitizer” should be under Schedule “K” of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. ii) Issue of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting every distribute/stock/
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.