Skip to main content

When Gujarat under Modi, later under Anandiben Patel, called GST an "attack" on state financial autonomy

By A Representative
Even as the ruling NDA government has been charging the opposition, especially Congress, for seeking to roadblock implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) across India, facts suggest, Narendra Modi as Gujarat chief minister, and later his successor, Anandiben Patel, taken strong exception GST till December 2014.
The Gujarat government made a written submission as late as December 11, 2014, seven months after Modi became Prime Minister, before the empowered committee of finance ministers. It opposed the 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced by Finance Ministe Arun Jaitley on three grounds:
  • that GST Bill is an attack on fiscal autonomy of the state; 
  • that GST Bill will adverse impact state revenues, and the 122nd Constitutional Bill on GST brought by the Modi government does not address any of states’ concerns; and 
  • that the implementation of GST would cause severe loss to a manufacturing state like and affect the ‘Make-in-India programme’. 
The written submission said, “The states have time and again expressed their concerns … mainly about the fiscal autonomy and the adverse implications on the revenues of the state due to introduction of the GST regime.”
It stated, the new draft of the 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill from the empowered committee failed to address “many of the concerns raised by the states have not been reflected in the draft”, adding, the states would “lose their fiscal autonomy”, in the same way as it happened after the introduction of the value added tax (VAT) in the place of sales tax.
Recalling that the Prime Minister had launched “the Make in India campaign”, the state government pointed towards how would Gujarat particularly lose: “In the GST regime, the abolition of central sales tax (CST) and the implementation of the destination principle would result in severe losses to manufacturing states that are also net exporting states.”
This was a continuation of what Narendra Modi as Gujarat chief minister had been saying between 2007 and 2014 to numerous empowered committee meetings of state finance ministers. In each of them, the state government opposed the constitutional amendment comprising GST Bill, describing it as against “the federal spirit of Constitution” as also the “rights of states to fiscal autonomy”.
On August 4, 2010, the state government said that the “constitutional amendment has come at a time when consensus is lacking even within the empowered committee”, as it “fundamentally alters powers of the states to levy and collect indirect taxes.”
It added, “The power to determine rate of taxes is a basic function of legislative body like Parliament or, as the case may be, State Legislature. Article 265 very clearly states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Thus, provisions of proposed Article 279A runs counter to the existing provisions of Constitution.”
Disagreeing with “wide-ranging powers given to GST council”, the Modi government asserted, “These powers shall remain within legislative and administrative purview of State and cannot be ceded to the council as it will take away entire financial autonomy of the State.”
On September 20, 2010, it said, the “Gujarat government does not support the proposed constitutional amendment in its present form”, as it would “destablise balance source of revenue and duties between Centre and States and would adversely affect the financial health of states and deprive them of a very important means of governance.”
On October 29, 2010, it said, “The constitutional amendment in the present format put forth by the Government of India is not acceptable to Gujarat.” On February 11, 2011, the it said that “the new constitutional amendment draft proposed by the Government of India is retrograde in nature and completely against the tenets of fiscal federalism.”

Comments

TRENDING

The 'Dr' debate masks a larger crisis in allied-health education

By Dr P K Gupta*  India’s allied-health professions have long operated in a fragmented landscape of universities, hospitals, State authorities and private institutions, each with its own nomenclature, curriculum and standards. The National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 was meant to correct this by creating a unified national framework for education, professional regulation and institutional recognition. Few dispute the need for such oversight. The real question is whether standardisation is quietly becoming synonymous with longer courses, additional internships and new professional titles—changes that risk masking deeper gaps in clinical training, institutional capacity and affordability.

Pilgrimage or pollution? The waste crisis of Indian faith

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  In today's times, there are certain issues that are constantly talked about and discussed, yet no visible impact seems to be made. Beyond water, soil, and pollution, one crisis that continues to be overlooked is waste. Like other life-threatening problems, waste too is gradually moving toward burying and obliterating us. After the Kanwar Yatra in Haridwar, approximately 8,000 tonnes of waste were left behind on the riverbanks, including bottles filled with urine. 

Arrival of USS Lincoln: A ‘leisure trip’ to Thailand or a neo-colonial move to commodify women?

By Benyasiri Eimviriyapong   The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for a ‘leisure trip’ in Thailand before returning to its campaign of destruction against the people of West Asia demands immediate interrogation and opposition. For us Thai people, and those in sites of American plunder across the globe, this a rattling of the US’ cold war colonial chains on its most loyal lap dog, while conducting a war of aggression in Iran and the ongoing genocide in Palestine. In allowing the USS Lincoln to dock, the Thai ruling elites are once again facilitating a system of imperial violence that extends far beyond Southeast Asian borders, a system which in our case, is predicated on sexual violence and femicide.