“From the treasury comes the power of the government, and the Earth, whose ornament is the treasury, is acquired by means of the Treasury and Army.”
-Kautilya (Arthasastra)
Prior to the advent of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), India’s indirect tax regime was characterised by a multiplicity of levies imposed by both the central and state governments. The Centre administered taxes such as Central Excise Duty, Service Tax, and Additional Customs Duty, while States imposed Value Added Tax (VAT), Entry Tax, Luxury Tax, Entertainment Tax, and others. This fragmented framework led to tax cascading, compliance complexity, and barriers to interstate trade. Each level of production or distribution attracted taxes without full input tax credit mechanisms, increasing the final price for consumers and reducing efficiency in the supply chain.
Moreover, the federal structure allowed states to enact different tax rates and policies, which led to an uneven playing field and logistical inefficiencies. For instance, transporting goods across state lines often involves check posts, documentation delays, and entry taxes, adversely impacting the ease of doing business. Recognising these issues, the need for a unified, comprehensive, and destination-based tax system became paramount. The concept of GST was initially proposed in 2000 and gradually evolved through institutional discussions, expert committee reports, and constitutional reforms to replace the disjointed structure with a single tax system.[1]
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a destination-based, multi-stage, comprehensive indirect tax levied on the supply of goods and services across India. It subsumes most central and state-level indirect taxes, thereby eliminating the cascading effect of taxation.
ARTICLE 366 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
(12A) “Goods and services tax” means any tax on supply of goods, or services or both except taxes on the supply of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption.
The tax is collected at each stage of the supply chain but with a full input tax credit mechanism, allowing businesses to claim a credit for taxes paid on inputs, thus reducing tax liability and production cost.
GST is governed by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), along with corresponding legislation such as the Integrated GST Act (IGST Act), State GST Acts, and Union Territory GST Act (UTGST Act). Section 9 of the CGST Act provides the charging section for CGST, while IGST is governed by Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017. The regime functions on a dual model wherein both the Centre and the States concurrently levy tax on a common base, with the Centre imposing Central GST (CGST) and the States levying State GST (SGST).
The primary objective of GST is to unify the national market by creating a common tax structure, thereby enhancing the ease of doing business and reducing the overall tax burden. The GST framework promotes transparency and uniformity in tax rates and structure across states. One of its key aims is to eliminate the cascading effect of taxes through the seamless flow of input tax credit.
From a macroeconomic perspective, GST seeks to improve tax compliance by integrating the informal economy and leveraging technology-driven platforms such as the GST Network (GSTN). It reduces the cost of goods and services by removing tax-on-tax, leading to increased competitiveness of Indian products both domestically and internationally. For consumers, this translates into reduced prices and better transparency in tax incidence. For governments, the GST regime aims to augment revenue through wider coverage and enhanced compliance monitoring.
The structural design of GST follows a dual model with four major components:
| SR NO. | TYPE OF GST | APPLICABLE ON |
| 1. | Central GST (CGST) | Levied by the central government on intra-state supplies. |
| 2. | State GST (SGST) | Levied by the state government on intra-state supplies. |
| 3. | Union Territory GST (UTGST) | Levied by Union Territories on intra-UT supplies (e.g., Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh). |
| 4. | Integrated GST (IGST) | Levied by the central government on inter-state and cross-border supplies. |
In an intra-state transaction (e.g., sale within Maharashtra), both CGST and SGST are levied simultaneously on the taxable value. In contrast, for an inter-state transaction (e.g., sale from Maharashtra to Gujarat), IGST is applied and collected by the Centre, which subsequently apportions the revenue between the Centre and the destination state
This structure not only maintains the fiscal autonomy of states but also ensures seamless tax administration across borders through a harmonised system.
The journey of GST in India has been marked by significant political, legal, and administrative milestones over nearly two decades. Below is a summarised timeline capturing key stages in the evolution and implementation of GST:
The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India required a significant constitutional reform to enable the concurrent powers of taxation to both the Union and the States. This was achieved through the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. The amendment introduced Article 246A, granting simultaneous powers to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws concerning GST. Notably, Article 269A was inserted to empower the Union to levy and collect GST on inter-State trade or commerce, with provisions for the distribution of revenue between the Union and States. Furthermore, Article 279A provided for the constitution of the GST Council, a federal body tasked with making recommendations on key aspects of the tax structure and administration.
This constitutional restructuring ensured that GST would be a comprehensive indirect tax subsuming major Central and State levies such as excise duty, service tax, VAT, and entry tax, thereby paving the way for a unified tax regime.
Following the constitutional amendment, the Parliament enacted four key legislations in 2017 to operationalise the GST framework.
2.2.1 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) governs the levy and collection of GSTS on intra-State supplies by the Central Government. It defines taxable events, registration procedures, input tax credit mechanism, returns, assessments, audits, and penalties. The CGST Act applies uniformly across India and is foundational to the administration of GST at the central level.
2.2.2 Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) deals with the taxation of inter-State supply of goods and services. Unlike the CGST, the IGST is levied and collected by the Central Government but apportioned between the Centre and the destination State. This ensures seamless credit across State boundaries and removes the cascading effect of interstate transactions.
2.2.3 State GST Acts
Each State in India has enacted its own State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST Act), applicable to intra-State supplies within that State. The provisions in these Acts mirror the CGST Act to a large extent to maintain uniformity. These Acts empower States to collect tax on local supplies and constitute a critical component of the dual GST model.
2.2.4 Union Territory GST Act
The Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UTGST Act) provides for the levy of GST in Union Territories that do not have their own legislature (such as Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, etc.). This Act operates in conjunction with the CGST Act and applies similar provisions adapted to the UT framework.
The GST Council, established under Article 279A of the Constitution, plays a pivotal role in the evolution and administration of GST in India. The Council consists of the Union Finance Minister (as Chairperson), the Union Minister of State (Finance/Revenue), and the Finance Ministers of all the States. It recommends tax rates, exemptions, model laws, threshold limits, and special provisions for certain States.
Importantly, decisions of the GST Council require a three-fourths majority, with the Centre having one-third voting power and all States collectively holding two-thirds. This federal structure ensures consensus-driven policymaking.[1]
The GST Council’s recommendations have shaped various aspects of GST implementation, including the introduction of the four-tier rate structure (5%, 12%, 18%, and 28%), exemption lists, compliance timelines, return formats, and technological infrastructure through the GST Network (GSTN).
The complexities and dynamism of India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime demand more than mere statutory compliance, they necessitate continuous advisory support for businesses. GST consultation refers to a range of expert services that assist taxpayers in interpreting GST provisions, aligning their business operations with the law, and navigating compliance and litigation risks. Given the vastness of GST law, advisory services play a pivotal role in ensuring accurate tax planning, reducing litigation, and maintaining ethical and commercial credibility.
GST is a transaction-based, self-assessed tax system where errors in classification, valuation, credit utilisation, or compliance timelines can lead to significant tax exposure, penalties, and interest. Hence, advisory services act as a preventive mechanism against legal challenges by enabling businesses to make informed tax decisions from the outset. Expert consultation also ensures that companies stay up to date with evolving GST laws, circulars, advance rulings, and notifications, which frequently shape and reshape compliance standards.
For example, a misclassification of a supply as “goods” instead of “services” (or vice versa) could lead to the application of incorrect rates, place of supply rules, or ITC eligibility. With businesses expanding across jurisdictions and product lines, strategic consultation becomes essential to maintain harmony between commercial practices and the indirect tax framework under the CGST Act and related laws.
Consultation services under GST cover a broad spectrum, from initial registration to complex legal structuring. These services enable businesses to pre-empt tax issues and optimise their operations within the legal boundaries of GST laws.
3.2.1 Registration and Classification
Consultants assist in determining whether a business is liable to register under GST and, if so, under which category: regular, composition, casual taxable person, or non-resident taxable person. Proper registration is the first step to lawful GST compliance.
Further, the classification of goods and services under the appropriate Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) or Services Accounting Code (SAC) is crucial for determining applicable GST rates. An incorrect classification can trigger departmental objections, leading to retrospective liabilities.[1]
3.2.2 Rate Determination and ITC Planning
An accurate determination of GST rates is essential, particularly in industries involving bundled services or composite/mixed supplies. Advisory services also address ambiguities around exemptions, reverse charge applicability, and cess obligations.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) planning is another major area where consultants provide value. Efficient ITC strategies can result in substantial cash flow savings and ensure compliance with conditions laid down under Sections 16–18 of the CGST Act. For instance, a business availing of ineligible ITC might face denial of credit, interest, and penalties.
3.2.3 Transaction Structuring
Advisors evaluate the tax implications of specific business transactions, including intra-state vs inter-state supply, export transactions, and job work, and suggest legally compliant structures that optimise tax outcomes. Transaction advisory becomes indispensable for e-commerce platforms, logistics businesses, and those involved in international trade.
For example, structuring an inter-state sale through a warehousing model in another state may require registration and compliance there, but with appropriate advice, the business can ensure minimal tax leakage while meeting statutory conditions.
GST law provides for the mechanism of advance rulings under Chapter XVII of the CGST Act, where businesses can obtain binding legal clarity on specific transactions before execution. Legal consultants often draft and file applications before the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) and represent clients in hearings. These rulings help avoid future disputes by clarifying the applicability of GST provisions on classification, rate, place of supply, or admissibility of ITC.
However, since advance rulings are state-specific, different states may issue contradictory decisions. In such cases, legal advisors may assist businesses in approaching the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) to resolve conflicts.[1]
Goods and Services Tax (GST) compliance refers to the set of obligations that a taxpayer must meet under the GST law to ensure proper adherence to tax regulations. It encompasses a wide range of procedural and substantive responsibilities, including registration, return filing, invoicing, input tax credit management, documentation, and timely payment of taxes. Adherence to compliance norms not only mitigates legal risks but also fosters transparency and ease of doing business.
Every supplier whose aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds the threshold limit prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is required to obtain GST registration. As per Section 22 of the CGST Act, the threshold is ₹20 lakhs (₹10 lakhs for special category states), with a higher limit of ₹40 lakhs for goods in certain states under notification.
Registration is mandatory for specific categories under Section 24, such as inter-state suppliers, persons liable to pay tax under reverse charge, and e-commerce operators. The process involves submission of identity proof, address proof, PAN, and business documents through the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in), followed by verification and GSTIN (Goods and Services Tax Identification Number) issuance.
Timely filing of GST returns is a critical element of compliance, allowing reconciliation of tax liabilities and input credits. The key returns include:
4.2.1 GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, GSTR-9C
| RETURN TYPE | DESCRIPTION | FREQUENCY | APPLICABILITY |
| GSTR-1 | Outward supplies | Monthly/Quarterly | All registered taxpayers (except composition scheme) |
| GSTR-3B | Summary return | Monthly | All registered taxpayers |
| GSTR-9 | Annual return | Annually | Taxpayers with turnover > ₹2 crores |
| GSTR-9C | Reconciliation statement (audited) | Annually | Taxpayers with turnover > ₹5 crores |
All returns are to be filed electronically via the GST portal and are integral for availing input tax credit and maintaining a compliant tax profile.
Proper invoicing is mandated under Section 31 of the CGST Act. An invoice must include details such as GSTIN, description, HSN/SAC codes, tax rates, and amounts.
E-Way Bill is required for movement of goods worth more than ₹50,000, as per Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017. It must be generated before the commencement of such movement and includes information about the consignor, consignee, and transporter.[1]
Input Tax Credit (ITC) enables a registered person to claim credit of tax paid on purchases against their output tax liability. It is governed by Sections 16 to 21 of the CGST Act. To avail ITC:
Rule 36(4) restricts the ITC to 105% of eligible credits as reflected in the GSTR-2B form, encouraging timely and accurate return filing by vendors.[1]
Section 35 of the CGST Act mandates every registered person to maintain books of account at their principal place of business. This includes records of invoices, credit/debit notes, stock registers, tax paid, and returns filed. Records must be preserved for a minimum of six years from the due date of the annual return for the relevant financial year.
Proper documentation supports compliance and serves as evidence in audits or investigations by tax authorities.
Non-compliance attracts penalties under Chapter XIX of the CGST Act. Some key provisions include:
Representation under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime is a vital component of taxpayer rights and compliance facilitation. It allows registered persons to defend their positions before tax authorities in case of disputes, assessments, notices, and appellate proceedings. Given the complexities of GST law, professional assistance in representation is not only advisable but often necessary.
Section 116 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) recognises authorised representatives, including advocates, Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants, Company Secretaries, and GST Practitioners, to appear before any officer or authority under the Act. These professionals play a pivotal role in drafting legal submissions, analysing statutory provisions, and making oral arguments to protect the taxpayer’s interest.
In complex matters involving classification disputes, input tax credit eligibility, or valuation, professionals provide interpretative guidance supported by jurisprudence and departmental circulars, thereby ensuring procedural fairness.
Show Cause Notices (SCNs) are issued under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act when tax has not been paid, has been short-paid, or has been erroneously refunded. Section 73 deals with cases not involving fraud, while Section 74 applies where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is alleged.
A proper reply to an SCN is fundamental to protecting the taxpayer’s position. It must:
Failure to reply may lead to an adverse ex parte adjudication and demand orders with penalty implications.
Registered persons or their authorised representatives are entitled to appear before GST officers during the adjudication process under Section 75 of the CGST Act. The provision mandates that no tax, interest, or penalty shall be levied without giving the person a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
This stage often involves personal hearings, presentation of facts, and rebuttal of departmental arguments. Professionals also assist in cross-referencing tax data across GSTR filings, reconciliations, and audit reports to establish compliance or rebut alleged deficiencies.
Appeals under GST follow a hierarchical structure:
| STAGE | AUTHORITY | RELEVANT STATUTE/ SECTION INCLUDED | TIMELINE FOR FILING |
| First Appeal | Appellate Authority | Sec 107 | Within 3 months |
| Second Appeal | GST Appellate Tribunal | Sec 109 | Within 3 months |
| High Court | Writ or Statutory Appeal | Constitution/CGST Act | Variable |
| Supreme Court | Appeal by Special Leave | Constitution/CGST Act | Discretionary |
Each appellate stage mandates the submission of a legally reasoned memorandum of appeal, relevant documents, and adherence to procedural rules. The services of legal professionals here are indispensable to interpreting statutes, preparing written submissions, and ensuring effective advocacy.
Despite its objective of simplification, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime has been subject to frequent disputes due to interpretational ambiguity, procedural lapses, and the evolving nature of statutory and administrative provisions. Litigation under GST arises from classification errors, denial of input tax credit, cancellation of registration, and challenges to legislative validity. Effective resolution mechanisms under the CGST Act, 2017, are essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and taxpayer rights.
6.1.1 Classification Disputes
Disputes often arise from incorrect classification of goods or services, particularly where multiple entries in the HSN or SAC codes may apply. Classification impacts the applicable rate of tax and consequently the price of goods or services. For instance, disputes have arisen over whether “paratha” should be taxed as a ready-to-eat item or a frozen product.[1] The CBIC issues clarification through circulars under Section 168 of the CGST Act, yet such circulars are not always binding on the courts, leading to litigation.
6.1.2 Denial of ITC
Denial of ITC is a major source of litigation. Common grounds include:
Taxpayers have challenged the validity of Rule 36(4) and Rule 86A for being arbitrary and violative of the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Courts have generally held that ITC is a statutory right and not a vested right, subject to compliance with legislative conditions.
6.1.3 Registration Cancellation
The department may cancel registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act for non-filing of returns, fraudulent activities, or discrepancies in documentation. Taxpayers have often challenged such cancellation on the grounds of a lack of hearing or disproportionate punishment.[1] High Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in such cases.
Adjudication begins with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Sections 73 or 74, depending on whether fraud is involved. The assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard under Section 75(4), following which a speaking order is passed by the adjudicating authority.
If aggrieved, the assessee may proceed with an appeal under Section 107. The adjudication process thus forms the first tier of GST dispute resolution and must comply with the principles of natural justice.
The GST litigation framework comprises a multi-tier appellate mechanism:
The GSTAT serves as the principal appellate body for the uniform interpretation of GST laws. However, due to pending appointments, High Courts are currently hearing many second-appeal matters.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) are empowered under Sections 95–106 of the CGST Act to provide legally binding decisions on issues such as:
While intended to reduce litigation, the advance ruling mechanism has itself been criticised due to contradictory rulings between states. To address this, the National Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling has been proposed under Section 101A.
Indian courts have played a pivotal role in interpreting and shaping the contours of GST law, especially in the absence of consistent administrative guidance. These judicial pronouncements serve as critical precedents for taxpayers and authorities alike, often resolving ambiguity in the legislative framework. The evolving GST jurisprudence underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles, taxpayer rights, and fiscal federalism.
In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that the levy of IGST on ocean freight under CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) contracts was unconstitutional. The Court observed that such a levy amounted to double taxation, as IGST was already paid on the composite import transaction.[1] It reaffirmed that recommendations of the GST Council are not binding, but hold persuasive value, reinforcing the federal nature of GST implementation.
Impact: This case clarified the scope of composite supply taxation, strengthened importers’ rights, and emphasised cooperative federalism under Article 279A of the Constitution.
b. LC Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v Union of India
The Karnataka High Court ruled that procedural lapses alone cannot disentitle a taxpayer from claiming input tax credit (ITC), provided the substantive conditions are met.[2] The Court directed the tax authorities to adopt a liberal and pragmatic interpretation, especially when taxpayer conduct is bona fide and there is no revenue loss.
Impact: The judgment offered relief to honest taxpayers and countered arbitrary denial of ITC by tax authorities under rigid procedural grounds.
c. Siddharth Enterprises v Nodal Officer
The Gujarat High Court allowed the belated filing of TRAN-1 for claiming transitional credit, citing technical glitches on the GST portal. The Court held that the right to carry forward credit is a vested right under the erstwhile tax regime and cannot be extinguished due to administrative inefficiencies.
Impact: This ruling recognised vested rights in tax credits, underlining that procedural rules must not override substantial entitlements under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
d. Canon India Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Customs
Although not strictly under GST, this Supreme Court decision has broader implications for indirect tax enforcement. The Court held that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) were not ‘proper officers’ to issue SCNs under the Customs Act, 1962.[1] The principle enunciated, that authority must derive from statute, has been relied upon in GST matters to challenge SCNs issued by officers lacking jurisdiction.
Impact: Strengthened the doctrine of legality in taxation and reinforced the importance of proper authorisation under fiscal statutes.
e. Calcutta Club Ltd v Commissioner of CGST
The Supreme Court reiterated that the supply of goods or services by a members’ club to its members is not liable to tax under GST, applying the doctrine of mutuality.[2] The Court held that there exists no “supply” as envisaged under Section 7 of the CGST Act between members and the club.
Impact: Clarified the tax treatment of non-profit and member-based entities, reaffirming the mutuality principle under GST law.
These cases collectively demonstrate the Indian judiciary’s proactive role in protecting taxpayer rights, clarifying legislative intent, and ensuring proportionality in tax administration. As GST matures, such jurisprudence will continue to be central in shaping a just and constitutionally compliant tax framework.
The GST regime envisages a multi-tier audit mechanism to ensure tax compliance and transparency in taxpayers’ dealings. The audits may be conducted either by the tax authorities or by professionals under statutory obligation, depending on the case and turnover of the taxpayer.
7.1.1 Departmental Audit
A departmental audit is initiated by the Commissioner or an authorised officer under Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017. This audit may be conducted at the taxpayer’s premises and focuses on the correctness of returns filed and taxes paid. It includes examination of books of accounts and compliance with statutory provisions. The officer must issue a prior notice at least fifteen working days before commencement and complete the audit within three months (extendable to six months) from the date of commencement.[1]
7.1.2 Special Audit (Section 66 of CGST Act)
Under Section 66, if the officer believes the value has not been correctly declared or the credit availed is not within the norms, he may, with prior approval of the Commissioner, order a special audit to be conducted by a Chartered Accountant (CA) or Cost Accountant (CMA) nominated by the Commissioner.[2] This audit must be completed within 90 days, extendable by a further 90 days on request. The cost is borne by the government, and the taxpayer is required to cooperate fully.
7.1.3 Annual Audit (by CAs and CMAs)
Initially, Section 35(5) of the CGST Act mandated that every registered person whose aggregate turnover exceeded ₹2 crore must get their accounts audited annually by a CA or CMA and submit GSTR-9C, a reconciliation statement.[3] However, the Finance Act, 2021, omitted this provision retrospectively from 1 August 2021. As a result, businesses are now only required to self-certify the reconciliation under Rule 80(3) of the CGST Rules, unless otherwise notified.
Audits require meticulous examination of financial records, invoices, returns (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9), ITC claims, and e-way bills. For departmental and special audits, authorities may demand cost audit reports, stock registers, and tax computation sheets. In cases involving large or complex transactions, reconciliations of income tax filings with GST returns may also be scrutinised.[1] Proper documentation and timely response to queries are essential to avoid penalties or show cause notices.
Chartered Accountants and Cost Accountants play a critical role in GST audits. They assist in reconciling turnover, verifying ITC claims, and preparing legal opinions on classification or exemptions. In departmental or special audits, professionals also act as authorised representatives before the tax department, ensuring procedural fairness and legal compliance. Their expert input is particularly crucial in interpreting ambiguous provisions, mitigating risks of litigation.
Post-audit, the department issues audit observations or findings. The taxpayer is entitled to reply to such findings with supporting documentation and legal justification. If discrepancies persist, proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act may be initiated for the recovery of tax, interest, or penalty. The response must be comprehensive, fact-based, and supported by judicial precedents and circulars to avoid escalation.
Since its inception, the GST regime has witnessed numerous implementation issues, particularly at the administrative and operational levels. One of the persistent challenges is the lack of standardised procedures across states, which often leads to duplication of efforts, especially in assessments and audits. The dual control structure, wherein both state and central tax authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, has occasionally caused confusion among taxpayers about the correct reporting hierarchy.
In addition, frequent legislative changes, amendments, and notifications have contributed to a dynamic but often unpredictable regulatory environment. Many small and medium businesses have reported difficulties keeping pace with changes, particularly those relating to input tax credit conditions, registration thresholds, and reverse charge obligations.
The GSTN (Goods and Services Tax Network), designed as the digital infrastructure to support the entire tax system, has often come under scrutiny for technical glitches, especially during return filing periods. Periodic slowdowns, server outages, and data mismatches between portals (such as the e-way bill portal and GSTN) have led to frustration among taxpayers.
Despite multiple rounds of improvements, the portal continues to experience performance inconsistencies, with user experience varying significantly depending on traffic load. These technical issues sometimes result in the imposition of penalties for late filing, even where the delay is due to system failures and not taxpayer negligence.
The GST Council, formed under Article 279A of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in addressing systemic shortcomings through deliberation and reform. Over recent years, the Council has introduced a series of important changes aimed at simplifying compliance and de-cluttering the legal framework.
For example, the 48th GST Council Meeting approved measures to decriminalise certain minor offences, revising thresholds for prosecution under the CGST Act Other progressive steps include changes to GST rates on key goods and services, clarification on ITC eligibility, and the expansion of e-invoicing mandates to include businesses with annual turnover above ₹5 crore.
The Council’s responses have also been shaped by feedback from trade bodies, judicial pronouncements, and real-time implementation feedback, reflecting a relatively responsive governance model.
One of the foundational goals of GST was to streamline tax administration and enhance the ease of doing business across India. While the new system has largely achieved unification of indirect taxes, eliminating cascading tax effects and allowing seamless credit, it has also introduced compliance complexity, particularly for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions.
Positive changes include faster refund processes, simplified quarterly return schemes (QRMP), and automated systems for credit matching. These innovations have reduced manual intervention and improved procedural transparency. At the same time, however, businesses continue to face challenges relating to classification disputes, unpredictability in advance rulings, and occasional delays in receiving clarifications from authorities.[1]
Efforts are ongoing to bridge these gaps through digitisation, consultation, and further structural reforms aimed at achieving long-term predictability and fairness in the system.
The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) represents one of the most significant economic reforms in India’s post-independence history. Anchored in the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, and operationalised through the CGST, SGST, IGST, and UTGST Acts of 2017, the GST regime has replaced a fragmented, multi-layered system of indirect taxation with a unified, destination-based model. This transformation has facilitated smoother interstate trade, broadened the tax base, and aimed to eliminate cascading effects through an integrated input tax credit (ITC) mechanism.
Furthermore, the institutional framework, including the GST Council under Article 279A, the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN), and an expanding jurisprudence on classification, credit eligibility, and adjudication, has progressively matured. Professional support in GST consultation, litigation, audit, and representation has further reinforced compliance and transparency in the system.
While GST has made considerable strides in unifying India’s indirect tax system, certain structural and procedural aspects require further refinement. Several issues continue to challenge both taxpayers and administrators, necessitating targeted reforms to enhance clarity, efficiency, and fairness in the system.
One primary area for reform is the complex tax rate structure. The current multiplicity of slabs, 5%, 12%, 18%, and 28%, along with various exemptions and cess categories, has led to classification disputes and inconsistent application. A rationalised, possibly dual-slab structure could simplify compliance and reduce litigation without significantly impacting revenue.
Another persistent concern is the efficiency of the GSTN portal, which forms the backbone of compliance and return filing. Users have frequently reported technical glitches, downtime, and interface issues. To address this, the government should prioritise the portal’s technological overhaul, focusing on stability, scalability, and user-centric features. Integrating advanced analytics could also pre-empt errors and enable real-time validation2.
The interpretation and administration of GST law is another area requiring attention. There is often inconsistency in rulings issued by State-level Advance Ruling Authorities, leading to legal uncertainty. Establishing a Central Appellate Authority or harmonising interpretations across States would greatly enhance predictability for businesses.
Moreover, capacity building for taxpayers and tax officers remains critical. Regular training, outreach initiatives, and sector-specific guidance can demystify complex provisions such as input tax credit (ITC), reverse charge, and e-invoicing. Tailored schemes for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) may also improve compliance rates while reducing burdens.
Lastly, a robust grievance redressal system and time-bound response mechanism should be instituted to swiftly resolve disputes and administrative delays. As GST evolves, continuous feedback from stakeholders and timely legislative reviews will be essential to align the law with changing economic realities.
Looking ahead, the GST regime must evolve into a more business-friendly, tech-integrated, and legally consistent system. Strengthening institutional coordination between the Centre and States, continuing the GST Council’s consultative and adaptive role, and deepening automation in compliance processes will be critical to realising the full potential of GST as a tool for economic efficiency.
India’s indirect tax system is now at an inflection point. With continued refinement, stakeholder engagement, and judicial clarity, the GST framework can become a model of cooperative federalism and fiscal transparency for the developing world.
REFERENCES
10.1 Statutes and Rules
10.2 Government Websites
10.3 Case Law Referred
Author- Suhani Sharma
4th Year BBA LLB, Army Law College, Pune
Get started instantly
Our Services
© Copyright TMWala. All rights reserved
Choose your Entity Type
Individual/ MSME/ Sole Proprietorships
Non-MSME/ Large Entities
Original price was: ₹1,500.00.₹999.00Current price is: ₹999.00.
Trademark Application @ ₹999* (Basic Discounted Plan for MSME/Individual/Sole Proprietorships) Best-Selling, Economical & Easy
Original price was: ₹1,500.00.₹999.00Current price is: ₹999.00.
Trademark Application @ ₹999* (Basic Discounted Plan for Non-MSMEs/Large Entities) Best-Selling, Economical, Quick and Easy
Choose your Entity Type
Individual/ MSME/ Sole Proprietorships
Non-MSME/ Large Entities
Original price was: ₹3,500.00.₹1,999.00Current price is: ₹1,999.00.
Government Fees
₹4500/-
Original price was: ₹3,500.00.₹1,999.00Current price is: ₹1,999.00.
Government Fees
₹9000/-
Choose your Entity Type
Non-MSME/ Large Entitie
Individual/ MSME/ Sole Proprietorships
Original price was: ₹15,000.00.₹6,999.00Current price is: ₹6,999.00.
Trademark Application @ ₹6999* (Premium Discounted Plan for Non-MSMEs/Large Entities) Comprehensive
Government Fees
₹9000/-
Original price was: ₹15,000.00.₹6,999.00Current price is: ₹6,999.00.
Trademark Application @ ₹6999* (Premium Discounted Plan for MSME/Individual/Sole Proprietorships) Comprehensive
Government Fees
₹4500/-
