It has, however, raised concerns on the proposed exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from a GST. The 13th Commission had recommended these items be brought under the purview. With states reluctant to let go the revenue from these, the issue became a sticking point in negotiations with the Centre. The constitutional amendment Bill tabled in December last year had excluded alcohol and tobacco products from the design of a GST.
The 14th Commission has stated that in the long run, all goods and services should be brought under the ambit of a GST; exclusion of any is not desirable.
On estimation of a revenue-neutral rate, it has said: “There are several challenges and many unresolved issues. In the absence of clarity on the design of a GST and the final rate structure, we are unable to estimate revenue implications and quantify the amount of compensation in case of revenue loss to the states due to the introduction of GST.”
One of the most contentious issues for the rollout of GST has been the compensation to be paid by the Centre to states. With the Commission admitting inability to determine the loss of actual revenue incurred by the states, it could raise questions on the Centre's proposed compensation model.
The Commission proposals include a specified period of GST compensation, legal status of the compensation fund and universal application of a GST regime.
On the GST compensation period, its recommendation is in line with the Union proposal. This will involve the states receiving compensation for five years, from the Centre. It recommends 100 per cent compensation be paid to states in the first, second and third years, 75 per cent compensation in the fourth year and 50 per cent in the fifth and final year.
With the recommendations likely to be accepted, one can assume the proposed Rs 11,000 crore compensation determined by central government is likely to be transformed into a GST compensation fund. As this is likely to gain autonomous status, it will provide greater comfort to states. However, the commission is silent on the funds' operational period.
Further, it has cautioned that any distortionary origin-based taxes be avoided. This could raise questions on the proposed levy of the one per cent tax on the supply of goods and services. Industry bodies have voiced concerns on this provision, being viewed as a piecemeal arrangement to achieve consensus with states.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)