Paranthaman.K vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, a person with 100% disability (blindness), sought to purchase a four-wheeler and avail concessions on GST, Road Tax, and Tool Tax, as provided by Notification No. 14 of 2019. The petitioner's application was rejected by Respondent No. 4 on the grounds that the concessions were not available to persons with blindness. The petitioner relied on an order from the Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities, which held that travel concessions should be extended to all persons with disabilities, irrespective of the type of disability, drawing inspiration from the Supreme Court's decision in Javed Abidi Vs. Union of India. The impugned communication was dated 12.07.2021, and a consequential email was dated 11.08.2021.

Held

The Court held that the recommendations of the committee, which proposed extending GST concessions for motor vehicle purchases to all categories of persons with benchmark disabilities, would be accepted and given effect to. This effectively resolved the issue of whether concessions should be extended to all disability types. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 12.07.2021 and the consequential electronic mail dated 11.08.2021 were set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to process the petitioner's online application for concessions expeditiously, and in any event, conclude the process on or before 31.01.2022. The Court appreciated the fair stand taken by the respondents and the assistance provided by the Assistant Solicitor General.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST, Road Tax, and Tool Tax concessions for purchasing a motor vehicle, as provided under Notification No. 14 of 2019, are applicable to persons with all categories of disabilities, including blindness? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the concessions should be extended to all persons with disabilities, irrespective of the type of disability, citing the order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities and the Supreme Court's judgment in Javed Abidi Vs. Union of India. The petitioner argued that the rejection of their application based on the specific type of disability was illegal. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Assistant Solicitor General, informed the Court that a committee was constituted to explore the possibility of extending GST concessions to all 21 categories of Divyangjan for motor vehicle purchases. The committee's recommendations, which supported extending the concessions to all categories of benchmark disabilities, were accepted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.