GST@10: A taxman's review
The biggest indirect tax reform of Independent India, the Goods & Services Tax ( GST) completes ten years. It has been a momentous nine years. GST created an integrated national market, removed the cascading effect of taxes, harmonized rules and procedures, dramatically increased the taxpayer base from 67.80 lakh to 1.65 crore.
Average GST revenue collection touched anywhere between Rs.1.80 crore to Rs.1.85 lakh crore up from the average of under Rs.1 lakh crore in the pre-GST era. The issue of multiplicity of slabs which was a major area of concern has been addressed along with rate rationalisation. The GST Tribunal has been put in place and hopefully will have the necessary wherewithal to adjudicate the more than 4.5 lakh pending appeals soon.
The technology framework, GSTN has more or less settled down. AI and ML are ensuring a robust data analysis which is strengthening the enforcement machinery. The GST Council continues to be a shining example of cooperative federalism. However, in the euphoria of acknowledging the enormous positives of GST we should not forget to take a step back and analyse what more needs to be done, to understand and address the concerns of the States, the crucial partners in this reform.
Tamil Nadu has been in the forefront of raising several concerns about GST. The Government of Tamil Nadu constituted a Committee under Justice Kurian Joseph to examine Centre-State relations; the Committee Report, which was submitted on February 2, 2026, has also dealt extensively with GST and made several recommendations. Not all are perhaps valid and would in effect call for revisiting many of the decisions taken during the various GST Council meetings after due deliberation. Nevertheless, the recommendations deserve an examination by the Centre — because it does reflect the vocal views of the opposition ruled States and one suspects also of the ruling party ruled States.
The Report recommends ‘targeted amendments’ of Article 279A of the Constitution, the very heart of the GST reform. Amendments have been suggested of Clauses 7 and 9. Clause 7 specifies the required quorum (one half of the total members); clause 9 specifies requirement of three-fourths of the weighted votes for a decision to be passed. The weightage to be given in the event a vote is required to approve a decision is one third for the Center and two-thirds for the States. The Report recommends that this be amended.
Multiple options have been given all designed to reduce the perceived influence of the Centre.
Further there is a recommendation that the current ‘one State, one Vote’ mechanism be replaced with a weightage allocation based on various other parameters. The Report misses a crucial fact — not once in all the 56 GST Council meetings was there a need to put a decision to vote. All decisions were taken by consensus. The voting weightage is such that no one entity— Centre or State, has an undue advantage. So, the recommendation based on an apprehension that the Centre has an undue advantage is misplaced.
Taking the cue from the Apex Court decision in Mohit Minerals (2022) it has been suggested that the Article 279A should be amended to expressly clarify that the Councils recommendations are recommendatory only and similarly to remove the requirement that rules be made on the Council’s recommendations. These suggestions if carried out will destroy the very USP of GST of one nation, one law.
Yet another amendment in Article 279A has been suggested to provide for a joint standing committee of Parliament and State Legislatures to act as a ‘federal legislative counterweight’. Such a committee will lack the agility to take decisions and will only act as an impediment. The other amendment suggested again in Article 279A is to create an independent GST Dispute Settlement Authority chaired by a Supreme Court Judge.
