STATE GST COMPENSATION: STATES OR UNION OBLIGATION
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the fiscal year 2020-21, the Central government of India originally refused to pay the states for genuine and false GST revenue losses. While state governments raced to garner support for their legal and financial arguments for their requests, the Centre recited situational necessity and the want of any responsibilities as justifications for its rejection. It provided the states with two compensation alternatives, both of which included borrowing. The Centre, on the other hand, had pledged the opposite, as shown by GST Council sessions and the 101st Statutory Modification Act. The vow includes the responsibility to provide a steady supply of compensation-credit to states, which is especially onerous given the state's tremendous sacrifice. The formation of statutory tax-fields outside of Roster VII of the Constitution of India, in addition to the Centre’s disproportionately dominant role in executing these, was both dependent on the future consideration of the state. The "anti-coercion" doctrine is now recognized in American Statutory law as having its foundation in this. This study shows that this idea has been implicitly enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Hence, GST compensation turns into a statutorily mandated duty, thereby curtailing the Centre's legal latitude. The GST Compensation Act and the GST Statutory Framework will be the main focus of this research.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Reuters, Arun Jaitley Faces Hurdles For Launch Of GST By April 2017, Zeebiz, December 24, 2016, Available At Https://Www.Zeebiz.Com/India/News-Arun-Jaitley-Faces-Hurdles-For-Launch-Of-Gst-By-April-2017-9603 (Last Visited On May 14, 2022).
Et Bureau, GST: Centre, States Reach Consensus Over Dual Control, Rollout Likely From July 1, January 17, 2017, Available At Https://Economictimes.Indiatimes.Com/News/Economy/Policy/April-1-Deadline-For-Gst-Ruled-Out-4-Options-Now-For-Arun-Jaitley-In-Budget-2017/Articleshow/56598850.Cms?From=Mdr (Last Visited On May 11, 2022); A. Sri Hari Nayudu, Tax Revenue Efficiency Of Indian States: The Case Of Stamp Duty And Registration Fees, 3 (National Institute Of Public Finance And Policy, Working Paper Series No. 278 Of 2019), Available At Https://Pfmkin.Org/Sites/Default/Files/2020-02/9.%20tax%20revenue%20efficiency%20of%20indian%20states%20-The%20case%20of%20stamp%20duty%20and%20registration%20fees_Nipfp.Pdf (Last Visited On May 12, 2022).
Michael C. Tolley & Bruce A. Wallin, Coercive Federalism and The Search for Constitutional Limits, Vol. 25(4), Oxford University Press, 73, 74-83 (Autumn, 1995).
Aziz Huq, The Negotiated Structural Constitution, Vol. 114(7), Columbia Law Review, 1595, 1621-1622 (November, 2014).
The Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, §2(F), §7(6) (Compensation Act).
Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View Of The Cathedral, Vol. 85(6), Harvard L. Rev., 1089, 1092-1093(April, 1972).
Constituent Assembly Debates, November 4, 1948 Speech By Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 43, Available At Https://Eparlib.Nic.In/Bitstream/123456789/760458/1/Ca_Debate_Eng_Vol_02.Pdf (Last Visited On May 20, 2022).
Erin Ryan, Federalism at The Cathedral: Property Rules, Liability Rules, And Inalienability Rules In Tenth Amendment Infrastructure, Vol. 81, William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository, 1, 18-19 (2010).
The Constitution of United States, 1789 (Amendment VI).
F.E. Guerra-Pujol, Coase and The Constitution: A New Approach to Federalism, Vol. 14(4), Richmond Journal Of Law And Public Interest, 593, 597, 599 (2011).
.H. Coase, The Federal Communications Commission, Vol. 2, Journal Of Law And Economics, 1, 25-26 (1959).
Daniel J. Hemel, Federalism as A Safeguard Of Progressive Taxation, Vol. 93(1), New York University L. Rev., 1, 6-7 (April, 2018).
Nikolai Lazarev, Hohfeld’s Analysis Of Rights: An Essential Approach To A Conceptual And Practical Understanding Of The Nature Of Rights, Murdoch University Electric Journey Of Law, 2005, Available At Http://Www.Austlii.Edu.Au/Au/Journals/Muruejl/2005/9.Html (Last Visited On May 20, 2022).
Maria Tereza Leopardi Mello, “Property” Rights and The Ways of Protecting Entitlements, Vol. 20(3), The Contemporary Economic Journal, 430, 434-437 (2016).
Bridget A. Fahey, Federalism by Contract, Vol. 129, The Yale Law Journal 2326 (2020).
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), 164, 166, 177 (Supreme Court of the United States).
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), 935-940 (Supreme Court of the United States).
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) (Supreme Court of the United States).
Ibid.
Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U. S. 181 (2002), 186 (Supreme Court of the United States); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1 (1981), 17 (Supreme Court of The United States).
The Relevant Portion Reads That “The Congress Shall Have Power to Regulate Commerce…Among The Several States.”
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), 2608 (Supreme Court of The United States).
Non-Interference of The Union in Taxes Covered By Schedule VII, List-II, State List Of The Indian Constitution.
Andrew B. Coan, Commandeering, Coercion, And The Deep Structure of American Federalism, Vol. 95(1), Boston University L. Rev. 1 (2015); Mitchell N. Berman, Coercion, Compulsion, And The Medicaid Expansion: A Study In The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Vol. 91, Texas L. Rev.,1283 (2013); James F. Blumstein, Nfib v. Sebelius- Putting Enforceable Limits On Federal Leveraging: The Contract Paradigm, The Clear Notice Rule, And The Coercion Principle 6 J. Health & Life Sci. L. 123 (2013).
C.P. Chandrashekhar & Jayati Ghosh, Co-Operative Federalism Has Given Way To Coercive Federalism, The Hindu Businessline, January 25, 2021, Available At Https://Www.Thehindubusinessline.Com/Opinion/Columns/C-P-Chandrasekhar/Co-Operative-Federalism-Has-Given-Way-To-Coercive-Federalism/Article33661082.Ece (Last Visited On May 21, 2022); Rajeev Gowda & Manpreet Singh Badal, In ‘Act Of God’, Coercive Not Cooperative Federalism, The Hindu, August 29, 2020, Available At Https://Www.Thehindu.Com/Opinion/Op-Ed/In-Act-Of-God-Coercive-Not-Cooperative-Federalism/Article32469299.Ece (Last Visited On May 21, 2022).
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) (Supreme Court Of The United States); See Also South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), 211 (Supreme Court Of The United States).
Shah, Pathik. Handbook On Service Tax and GST Along with Amendment of FinanceAct, 2016, 89 (4th Edition, 2015).
As Expounded In Terms of Union Of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, (1971) 2 SCC 779 And Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State Of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45.
2018 SCC Online Sc 1727.
In Ito V. Mani Ram, AIR 1969 SC 543: (1969) 1 SCR 724 The Supreme Court Has Quoted with Approval the Decision Of House Of Lords In Kirkness v. John Hudson & Co. Ltd., 1955 A.C 696: (1955) 2 Wlr 135 (Hl) Inter Alia Observing “That The Beliefs And Assumptions Of Those Who Frame Acts Of Parliament Cannot Make The Law”.
For Illustration Jayam & Co. v. Commr., (2016) 15 SCC 125.
Available At Http://Www.Gstcouncil.Gov.In/Sites/Default/Files/First%20discussion%20paper%20on%20gst.Pdf
Filco Trade Centre (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online Guj. 1419.
Tara Exports v. Union of India, WP 18532/2018, Decision Dated 10-9-2018.
2018 SCC Online SC 1727.
Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors v. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 101.
2018 SCC Online SC 1727
India Const. Entries 83 And 84, List I, Seventh Schedule. No Separate Entry for Service Tax Existed in The Constitution At The Time It Was Enacted. Though The Supreme Court In Tn.Kalyana Mandapam Assn. V. Union Of India, (2004) 5 SCC 632 Held That Such Service Tax As A Subject Matter Was Within The “Residuary Power” Of The Union, Entry 92c Was Introduced Into List I By The Constitution (88th Amendment) Act, 2004 To Clarify That The Union Had The Exclusive Power To Impose A Service Tax.
India Const. Entries 54 And 52, List Ii, Seventh Schedule.
This Is Not to Say That the Union and The State Can Never Tax the Same Subject Matter or Transaction. The Supreme Court’s Judgments Following Federation of Hotel &Restaurant Assn. Of India V. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC634 Allow the State and The Centre to Tax the Same Subject Matter but Different "Aspects" Of It. Whether or Not the Aspect Theory Has Any Place in Indian Constitutional Law, Given The Clear Division of Powers Between Union and The States Is Also a Matter to Be Examined, But Outside The Scope of This Study.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.