P. K. Joseph Vs Union of India
Date: October 8, 2025
Subject Matter
PIL Seeking Inclusion of Petrol and Diesel Under GST Dismissed. Policy Prerogative of the GST Council
Summary
The High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking a directive to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council to include petrol and diesel under the GST regime. The Court held that fixing a date for such an inclusion is a policy prerogative of the GST Council, and judicial interference is unwarranted.
Key Facts and Procedural History:
Relief Sought: The petitioners sought the inclusion of specified petroleum products under the GST regime to achieve a harmonized national market, as contemplated under Article 279A of the Constitution of India.
GST Council Decision: Pursuant to an interim court direction, the GST Council deliberated the issue in its 45th meeting but decided "that it is not appropriate to do so at this stage," citing reasons such as high revenue implications, the need for larger deliberations, and pandemic-related difficulties.
Court's Dissatisfaction: The High Court initially expressed dissatisfaction with the Council's reasons, stating that there should be some "discussion and genuine reasons" for excluding petroleum products.
Court's Finding on Maintainability:
The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus, based on the following reasons:
Policy Domain: The decision to fix a date for including petroleum products under GST "completely falls within the domain of the GST Council’s policy." The constitutional scheme grants the Council the prerogative to make this decision.
No Vested Right: The Court held that "there is no right conferred upon any citizen to command the GST Council" to fix a date for the inclusion of petroleum products under the GST regime.
Distinction from Precedent: The Court distinguished the reliance placed on Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India, noting that the precedent dealt with the acknowledged statutory right of advocates to practice. In contrast, the current petition seeks interference in a matter of core fiscal policy.
The Court concluded that it could not substitute its wisdom for that of the GST Council in a matter of policy, and therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
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.