Fiscal Federalism and the Reconfiguration of Centre–State Power Relations after GST

Abstract

The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in July 2017 marked a significant transformation in India’s indirect taxation system and fiscal governance. GST replaced several central and state taxes — including excise duty, service tax, value added tax, and entry tax — with a comprehensive unified tax framework. The reform aimed to simplify the tax structure, improve tax compliance, reduce cascading taxes, and create a unified national market. It was also expected to strengthen cooperative federalism by encouraging coordination between the Union and State governments in matters of taxation and fiscal management.

This paper examines the implications of GST for fiscal federalism and the changing nature of Centre–State relations in India. The study explores how the new tax system has altered fiscal authority and revenue-sharing arrangements between different levels of government. Particular attention is given to the institutional role of the GST Council, which serves as a joint decision-making body responsible for determining tax rates, exemptions, and other policy matters. Through this institutional mechanism, the Union and State governments participate collectively in shaping the GST framework.

The study relies on secondary data obtained from government reports, policy documents, budget statements, and GST revenue statistics. Trend analysis of GST collections is used to understand the fiscal outcomes of the reform. The findings indicate that GST has improved tax administration, increased transparency, and expanded the tax base over time. At the same time, the reform has reduced the independent taxation powers of State governments, leading to greater dependence on intergovernmental fiscal arrangements.

The paper concludes that GST has contributed to economic integration and efficiency in tax administration, but has also introduced new challenges for fiscal autonomy and federal balance. Strengthening cooperative federalism requires transparent revenue-sharing mechanisms, institutional dialogue, and policy adjustments that protect the financial interests of both the Union and State governments.

Keywords: GST, Fiscal Federalism, Centre–State Relations, GST Council, Cooperative Federalism, Indirect Tax Reform, India

1.Need for the Study

Fiscal federalism is a foundational component of India’s constitutional framework, as it governs how financial powers and responsibilities are distributed between the Union and State governments. Prior to the implementation of GST, states exercised considerable autonomy in levying indirect taxes such as value added tax, entertainment tax, and entry tax. The introduction of GST integrated several central and state taxes into a unified structure. While this reform simplified taxation and improved economic efficiency, it simultaneously transformed the nature of fiscal authority within the federal system. Understanding how GST has reshaped the Centre–State financial relations is therefore an important area of academic and policy research, particularly for scholars of political science, public finance, and governance.

2. Objectives of the Study

1. To examine the transformation of fiscal federalism in India after the introduction of GST.

2. To analyse the institutional role of the GST Council in Centre–State fiscal relations.

3. To evaluate the impact of GST on the fiscal autonomy of State governments.

4. To identify opportunities and challenges associated with GST reforms in India.

3. Hypothesis

The introduction of GST has strengthened fiscal coordination between the Union and the States but has simultaneously reduced the independent taxation authority of State governments, creating a new dynamic of fiscal interdependence within India’s federal system.

4. Research Methodology

This study adopts a descriptive and analytical research design. The analysis is primarily based on secondary data obtained from government reports, Finance Commission publications, policy documents, and academic research articles. GST revenue statistics and budgetary data have also been examined to understand fiscal trends. Comparative analysis is used to assess changes in the fiscal structure before and after the introduction of GST, with a focus on revenue autonomy, intergovernmental transfers, and institutional decision-making patterns within the GST Council.

5. GST Revenue Trend in India

The following table presents the annual GST revenue collections from 2017–18 to 2024–25, reflecting the fiscal trajectory of the reform over eight years.

Table 1: GST Revenue Collections in India (2017–18 to 2024–25)

The data presented in Table 1 reveals a consistent upward trajectory in GST collections across the review period. A temporary contraction occurred during 2020–21, attributable to the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated nationwide lockdowns. However, revenue levels rebounded sharply in 2021–22 and have continued to grow in subsequent years. By 2024–25, average monthly collections had reached ₹1.84 lakh crore, reflecting significant improvements in taxpayer compliance, the expansion of the formal economy, and the maturation of the GST Network’s digital infrastructure. This revenue buoyancy has strengthened the fiscal foundation of both the Union and State governments, though questions of equitable distribution persist.

6. Key Research Findings

6.1 Institutional Innovation in Federal Governance

Among the most significant institutional outcomes of the GST reform is the creation of the GST Council as a structured intergovernmental forum in which both levels of government overnment engage collaboratively in shaping tax policy. Established through Article 279A of the Constitution, the Council brings together Union and State representatives whose decisions require broad agreement, preventing any single level of government from imposing outcomes unilaterally. What distinguishes this body is its departure from conventional fiscal arrangements in India, where central authority has traditionally overshadowed state input. By formalising a process of deliberation and joint ownership of tax decisions, the Council has introduced a more consultative model of federal governance that the pre-GST era lacked (Chakraborty, 2020).

6.2 Reduction in Fiscal Autonomy of States

A direct consequence of GST consolidation has been the erosion of states’ independent taxation powers. Prior to 2017, state governments could adjust VAT rates, levy entry taxes, and impose entertainment taxes in response to local fiscal needs. Under the unified GST regime, these instruments have been subsumed, and states must negotiate rate changes through the Council. This shift has increased state dependence on central devolution and GST compensation transfers, fundamentally altering the balance of fiscal federalism in India.

6.3 Revenue Dependence and Compensation Issues

One of the more contentious aspects of the GST transition was the compensation arrangement designed to protect states from revenue shortfalls during the initial years of implementation. States were assured a minimum annual revenue growth of fourteen percent over a base year, with the Union government obligated to bridge any deficit. This arrangement, though conceived as a confidence-building measure, became severely strained when the economic disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic caused 2020–21 collections to fall well short of guaranteed levels. Several states experienced protracted delays in receiving due compensation, disrupting their budget planning and raising broader questions about the reliability of intergovernmental fiscal commitments. Since the compensation window closed in 2022, the absence of a successor framework has kept long-run revenue adequacy at the forefront of ongoing Centre–State fiscal negotiations (Mukherjee, 2019; Reserve Bank of India, 2023).

6.4 Enhanced National Market Integration

One of the more tangible outcomes of GST implementation has been the dismantling of the fragmented tax environment that previously impeded the free movement of goods across state borders. By replacing the Central Sales Tax, state entry levies, and border checkpoint procedures with a single integrated framework, the reform has lowered the cost and complexity of interstate commerce. Businesses operating across multiple states now benefit from a simplified input credit system that reduces the cumulative tax burden on production. Studies examining freight and logistics trends following GST implementation indicate measurable improvements in delivery efficiency and reductions in inventory costs attributable to rationalised warehousing strategies, as firms are no longer compelled to maintain tax-driven distribution networks (National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, 2021).

7. Opportunities

• Creation of a unified national market through elimination of inter-state tax barriers

• Increased transparency and accountability in tax administration via the GSTN digital platform

• Improved tax compliance driven by invoice-matching, e-invoicing, and real-time data analytics

• Strengthening of cooperative federalism through structured institutional dialogue in the GST Council

• Formalisation of the economy, expanding the registered taxpayer base and broadening revenue streams

• Simplified input tax credit mechanism reducing the cascading burden on manufacturers and service providers

8. Challenges

• Growing fiscal dependency of states on central transfers due to curtailed independent taxation powers

• Disputes and delays over GST compensation payments, undermining state fiscal planning and budgetary certainty

• Perceived policy dominance of the Union government in the GST Council’s agenda-setting and technical processes

• Uneven revenue distribution across states, reflecting disparities in economic base, compliance capacity, and industrial structure

• Administrative complexity of a multi-rate tax schedule generating classification disputes and compliance uncertainty

• Inclusion of petroleum products outside the GST ambit, limiting full tax chain integration and creating continued distortions

9. Recommendations

1. Strengthen the decision-making autonomy of states within the GST Council by ensuring equitable analytical support and independent research capacity for state delegations.

2. Establish a transparent, rule-based, and formula-driven revenue-sharing compact to replace the ad hoc compensation mechanism, providing states with fiscal predictability.

3. Rationalise the GST rate structure toward a three-tier schedule — merit, standard, and demerit rates — to reduce classification disputes and compliance costs.

4. Introduce a phased roadmap for incorporating petroleum products within the GST framework to complete market integration and extend input credit chains.

5. Promote cooperative federalism through consensus-based policymaking, capacity-building programmes for weaker state tax administrations, and enhanced data transparency within the Council.

Conclusion

The Goods and Services Tax represents one of the most consequential fiscal reforms in independent India’s economic history. It has materially improved the efficiency of the indirect tax system, dismantled the cascading structure of multiple overlapping levies, and catalysed the integration of India’s national market into a more cohesive economic space. The GST Council, as a constitutionally embedded institution of cooperative federalism, has created a durable forum for intergovernmental fiscal dialogue that had no precedent in India’s earlier federal governance architecture.

At the same time, the reform has introduced structural tensions that have not been fully resolved. The contraction of state fiscal autonomy, the inadequacies of the transitional compensation mechanism, and the uneven administrative capacity across states pose ongoing challenges to the federal balance that GST was intended to strengthen. These tensions are not incidental but systemic, requiring deliberate institutional response rather than incremental adjustment.

Ensuring a balanced fiscal framework that upholds federal principles while supporting sustained economic growth requires the GST Council to evolve from a rate-setting body into a comprehensive institution of fiscal federalism — one capable of negotiating long-run revenue-sharing arrangements, addressing capacity disparities among states, and adapting policy to changing economic conditions. The trajectory of India’s growth, and the quality of its federal democracy, will in no small measure depend on how effectively this institutional evolution is pursued.

References

1. Chakraborty, P. (2020). Fiscal federalism and GST in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(12), 34–42.

2. Finance Commission of India. (2021). Fifteenth Finance Commission report: Volume I. Government of India.

3. Government of India. (2016). The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. Ministry of Law and Justice.

4. Government of India, Ministry of Finance. (2017). Goods and Services Tax: Concept and status. Department of Revenue.

5. Mukherjee, S. (2019). GST reform and fiscal federalism in India. Journal of Public Economics, 18(3), 55–74.

6. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy. (2021). Revenue buoyancy under GST: State-level evidence. NIPFP Working Paper No. 341.

7. Rao, M. G., & Singh, N. (2005). The political economy of federalism in India. Oxford University Press.

8. Reserve Bank of India. (2023). State finances: A study of budgets 2022–23. RBI Publications.

9. Srivastava, D. K., & Trehan, B. K. (2019). Reforming India’s fiscal federalism. Oxford University Press India.