Three Years of the GST Regime: Has it been a Success Story?

Must Read

NEP 2020: India making a Headway Towards ‘Global Knowledge Superpower’

History of Indian Education System Pathshala, Maktabs, and Madrasas were regarded as elementary schools before British Rule. Education was imparted...

India’s Trade War with China and its Numerous Implications

Recently India witnessed various developments like that of the clash between the Indian and the Chinese forces on the...

What If China Boycotts India?

With growing border tensions and India's boycott movement, what if China boycotts India? India-China Retaliation 20 Indian soldiers were martyred in...

Telecom Industry Crisis: What If Vodafone Idea Limited Shuts Down?

The telecom industry faces a crisis due to huge AGR dues and longtime dispute. Under such circumstances, there is...

Impact of COVID-19 on Food & Beverages Industry, Indirect Losses to Farmers

The outbreak of coronavirus has brutally affected all the sectors across the whole world. Among all the sectors, the Food...

Ever Rising Prices Of Fuels: Why Are Petrol Prices so High Today in India?

A daily petrol price revision is a better proposition for many reasons. The first and the foremost is that...

Follow us

Goods and Service Tax (GST) is considered as India’s biggest tax reform. Subsuming multiple central and state taxes, GST was rolled out with much fanfare. With the popular slogan of ‘One Nation One Tax’, the Centre set out to achieve a unified tax regime for the entire country. The last three years have been more of a trial and error phase for the Government, with initial apprehensions giving way to the general acceptance that GST is still at its nascent stage.

While there is no denying that the Centre has been able to establish a unified system of tax, the efficiency of tax administration and success of the regime is yet to be determined. A reduction in compliance costs by subsuming several taxes and the enhancement in the spirit of cooperative federalism are some of the highlights of the regime. However, in the past three years, despite the achievements, several issues have crept up, both in the policy as well as in the procedural front.

One of the first obstacles in the implementation of GST was with regard to the absence of robust technical infrastructure in place. The lack of a proper technical infrastructure continues to plague the current tax structure.  GST was rolled out on July 1, 2017, with many high ambitions without paying heed to the technical roadblocks that it might face in the future. Three years into the regime, technical glitches have been one of the major issues of dispute in the courts in India, with assesses unable to carry forward transitional credit in their electronic credit ledger. Although GST provided for a beneficial provision to taxpayers in the form of section 140 by allowing them to carry forward CENVAT credit of erstwhile taxes in their electronic ledger to GST, it was unable to meet its promises in an effective manner. The implementation of the provision was met with severe technical glitches with taxpayers knocking the doors of the courts for a solution. The issue of transitional credit has become one of the most litigated issues, thus raising the necessity for a proper technical infrastructure for GST. Along with transitional credit, the technical glitches in the implementation of the E-way bill system and the filing of refund applications on the online portal have created several woes for the taxpayers since its inception.

One of the dominant debates around the implementation of GST revolves around the Centre’s promise of reduction of cascading effect of tax and seamless flow of credit. The problem is two-fold. First, there are several instances where the GST is paid to the Government’s exchequer, however, the inefficiency in tax administration leads to denial of credit. Second, the provisions under the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) are drafted in such a manner to block credit in the majority of transactions, thus defeating the very objective of GST. Section 17(5) under the CGST Act, 2017 provides for a list of goods and services on which input tax credit is not allowed.

The twin-problems in technical infrastructure and denial of input tax credit lead to another issue i.e. in the matching of invoices. One of the important aspects of GST is matching invoices, wherein a buyer is required to reconcile its tax payments on invoices with the tax collections, deposited, and reported by the supplier on the Government portal. Any incorrect or unmatched transaction would lead to denial of credit to the recipients. In the initial period, technical glitches prevented the suppliers and recipients from matching the invoices, thus leading to a denial of credit. Even though technical glitches have been reduced to a certain extent, yet the same has been the reason for loss/denial of credit under GST for quite a long time.

The exclusion of petroleum, natural gas, and alcohol industries from the net of GST has led to a working capital loss for these industries. These industries use several inputs and input services for the manufacture of their final products on which GST is being paid. However, the industries cannot claim an input tax credit of these inputs and input services under section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 in as much as the final output product is excluded under the GST regime. There exists no mechanism under GST through which these industries can avail or utilize the input tax credit or claim a refund of the unutilized input tax credit, thus resulting in a working capital loss for the companies/industries. There have been several representations from the industry for resolution of this issue, however, no concrete solution has yet been put into place.

Another aspect of GST that needs attention is the establishment of a strong and effective appellate mechanism. As of present, the majority of the grievances of taxpayers are to be addressed in the form of writs to the High Courts or as applications before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR). The latter raises concerns in as much as the decisions of the AAR is binding only on the parties and has no precedential value on other taxpayers. Also, several contradictory decisions on the same issues have necessitated the establishment of a proper appellate mechanism. While the Central Government has agreed to establish GSTAT, the same has not yet been put into force due to the decision of Madras High Court in Revenue Bar Associations vs. UOI (W.P.No.26762 of 2019).

One of the major policy issues which have generated major attention during the pandemic is that od GST compensation cess. At the very initiation of GST, it was promised that the states will be provided with compensation cess to make up for the loss that the states might have to bear with the sudden change in the tax structure. However, even after three years, compensation cess has not yet been released by the Centre to the states, which had adverse consequences in the form of inadequate funds for the states to deal with the pandemic. The failure in releasing the compensation cess for the past three years not only raises questions on the current tax structure but also exposes the fissures in the fiscal federal structure of the country.

A robust and simplified-technology driven infrastructure is the need of the hour for fulfilling the objectives with which GST was unfurled in India. Release of compensation cess to states, seamless flow of credit in practice rather than on paper, the establishment of an appellate mechanism are certain areas to be looked into for an efficient system of tax administration. Lastly, a policy intervention will be helpful in providing for well-drafted and simplified GST law to reduce litigation.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -