Revision summary
GST compensation was the political insurance for States that subsumed VAT and related taxes. The 2017 Act promised a 14 per cent CAGR over a 2015-16 base for about five years, funded by cess. COVID crashed GST and cess inflows, so the fund could not meet the formula from current cess. The 2020 conflict was borrowing windows versus a Union Consolidated Fund bailout. The 14 per cent figure was a time-bound statutory compact, not a permanent constitutional grant.
Model answer
Introduction
GST asked States to give up origin-based taxes (VAT, entry tax, a slice of excise) for a destination-based dual GST. The GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 was the political insurance: a time-bound, formula-based top-up so no State would lose revenue in the transition. COVID then smashed collections. The fight of 2020 was over who borrows when the compensation cess no longer fills the promised gap — not over whether the 14 per cent figure had been secretly repealed.
Body
Rationale of the 2017 Act
- States feared a permanent loss of fiscal autonomy and of origin-tax buoyancy after subsuming VAT and related levies.
- The Act promised compensation for five years (broadly July 2017 to June 2022) if a State’s GST revenue fell short of a 14 per cent compounded annual growth over the 2015-16 tax base specified in the law.
- Funding was not meant to be a routine Union Budget grant. A GST compensation cess on specified luxury and sin goods (plus some others) was to flow into a compensation fund and then to States.
- The design bought a GST Council consensus: one tax, two levies, with a sunset insurance so reform was not a leap in the dark.
- It also created a moral-hazard and forecast problem: 14 per cent was a political ceiling-as-floor from a high pre-GST base year, generous in a slowdown even before COVID.
How COVID hit the compensation fund
- Lockdowns in 2020 crushed GST collections. Cess collections, tied to autos, coal, tobacco, and similar bases, also fell just when the compensation gap exploded.
- The fund therefore could not, in 2020-21, pay the full statutory formula from in-year cess the way a normal year might.
- Two shortfalls got argued: a GST implementation/structural shortfall versus a COVID-period shortfall. The Union’s 2020 line was that the Act never made the Consolidated Fund of India a residual guarantor; it made the cess the source.
- GST Council (around the 41st meeting, 2020) offered States borrowing options: a special window to borrow the cess-shortfall amount, with later cess extension to repay, versus a larger borrow covering a wider gap. That was the operational ‘impact’ — delay, options, and interest, not a silent repeal of 14 per cent.
New federal tensions
- States heard a compact: we ceded tax handles; you make us whole at 14 per cent CAGR. They wanted the Union to borrow (cheaper G-Sec, no State fiscal-deficit stain) and on-lend or grant.
- The Union heard a statute: compensation is cess-funded; a pandemic is an Act of God not written as a Centre overdraft; States should share the extraordinary borrowing.
- Finance Commissions, FRBM headroom, and market borrowings of States became the battlefield. Opposition-ruled States turned it into a trust issue about cooperative federalism.
- Extending cess beyond June 2022 to repay COVID-window loans was the later compromise logic: the insurance period ends, the debt tail remains.
- The tension is structural: GST centralised rate politics in the Council while leaving States fiscally hung on a temporary formula. COVID pulled the formula’s funding assumption apart.
What the answer must not do
- Do not say the Centre ‘abolished’ compensation in 2020. The fight was how to finance a cess shortfall.
- Do not treat 14 per cent as a constitutional forever-right. It was a five-year statutory assurance.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD GST[GST 2017 compact] --> A[Compensation Act] A --> P[14 percent CAGR five years] A --> C[Compensation cess fund] COVID[COVID collections crash] --> S[Cess shortfall] S --> B[State borrowing options] S --> T[Federal tension]
Conclusion
- The 2017 Act was the price of GST: a five-year, 14 per cent CAGR top-up funded by compensation cess so States would surrender VAT. COVID emptied that cess just as the gap peaked, and the 2020 quarrel was who borrows. Federal trust cracked because States thought they had a Union guarantee and the Union pointed at the cess clause.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What are the major factors responsible for making rice-wheat system a success? In spite of this success how has this system become bane in India?
Next question in the 2020 paper (Q13). View answer →
-
Did COVID cancel the 14 per cent assurance?
The formula remained in the Act. What broke was cess cashflow. The argument was who borrows to fill the hole.
-
Why did States refuse to treat it as only a cess problem?
They had surrendered tax handles for a political guarantee of revenue path. Pointing only at cess felt like changing the bargain after the shock.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q11 · GS III · 15 marks
Explain how the Fiscal Health Index (FHI) can be used as a tool for assessing the fiscal performance of states in India. In what way would it encourage the states to adopt prudent and sustainable fiscal policies? -
2021 · Q2 · GS III · 10 marks
Distinguish between Capital Budget and Revenue Budget. Explain the components of both these Budgets. -
2019 · Q1 · GS III · 10 marks
Enumerate the indirect taxes which have been subsumed in the goods and services tax (GST) in India. Also, comment on the revenue implications of the GST introduced in India since July 2017. -
2019 · Q12 · GS III · 15 marks
The public expenditure management is a challenge to the Government of India in context of budget making during the post liberalization period. Clarify it. -
2018 · Q2 · GS III · 10 marks
Comment on the important changes introduced in respect of the Long term Capital Gains Tax (LCGT) and Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) in the Union Budget for 2018-2019. (150 Words, 10 Marks). -
2017 · Q11 · GS III · 15 marks
One of the intended objectives of Union Budget 2017-18 is to 'transform, energize and clean India'. Analyse the measures proposed in the Budget 2017-18 to achieve the objective. -
2016 · Q2 · GS III · 12 marks
Women empowerment in India needs gender budgeting. What are the requirements and status of gender budgeting in the Indian context?
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks
Explain intra-generational and inter-generational issues of equity from the perspective of inclusive growth and sustainable development.
Inclusive Growth
Intra-generational equity is fairness among people alive now; it is the core of inclusive growth. Inter-generational equity is fairness toward the unborn; it is the core of sustainable development. Jobless or unequal booms fail the first test even when GDP rises. Aquifer mining, carbon lock-in, and weak environmental clearance fail the second. Policy must raise present capability without running down the ecological and fiscal stock.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks
Define potential GDP and explain its determinants. What are the factors that have been inhibiting India from realizing its potential GDP?
Indian Economy
Potential GDP is sustainable full-capacity output, not the latest quarterly print. Determinants are labour, capital stock, TFP, infrastructure, and macro stability. India wastes potential through low female participation, logistics gaps, and factor-market frictions. Bank and corporate stress, weak learning, and informality hold productivity down. Demand shocks open an output gap; scarring can also lower the ceiling itself.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2020 · GS III · 10 marks
What are the main constraints in transport and marketing of agricultural produce in India?
Indian Economy
Village roads and a thin cold-chain waste perishable produce before it is sold. Small loads and truck dependence keep agri freight costly. APMC concentration, weak assaying, and poor price information squeeze the seller. Distress harvest sales and thin warehouse-receipt credit force low prices. MSP procurement is not a marketing system for most crops and States.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.