When the Goods and Services Tax came into force on July 1, 2017, it was sold as India’s boldest fiscal reform since liberalisation. Enabled by the 101st Constitutional Amendment, GST dismantled a fragmented indirect tax regime that varied by state, sector, and stage of production. Eight years on, the Goods and Services Tax has outgrown its original promise of simplification. It has become a core instrument of fiscal coordination, compliance enforcement, and economic data generation.
The question now is no longer whether the Goods and Services Tax has worked. It is whether the system is being refined with enough discipline to balance revenue needs, compliance costs, and cooperative federalism.
READ | Indian economy: GST reforms and FDI surge power recovery
The pre-GST problem: Fragmentation by design
Before 2017, India’s indirect tax system was split across levels of government and stages of economic activity. The Centre levied excise duty, service tax and customs duty; states imposed VAT, entry tax, octroi, luxury tax and entertainment tax. Central Sales Tax distorted interstate trade, while cascading taxes inflated prices.
The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy estimated the effective indirect tax burden at over 26% in several manufacturing segments, with sharp interstate variation .These distortions raised logistics costs, discouraged scale, and embedded hidden taxes into final prices.
What GST fixed — and what it did not
The Goods and Services Tax subsumed more than 17 central and state levies into a destination-based tax, replacing physical barriers with a digital compliance framework. Interstate check-posts vanished. Input tax credit became available across the supply chain.
The results were tangible. Average truck transit times fell by 20–30%, according to transport studies . The Reserve Bank of India estimates that GST reduced the tax burden on manufactured goods by 4–5 percentage points, improving competitiveness.
Yet the Goods and Services Tax also inherited structural flaws. Multiple tax slabs, frequent rate changes, inverted duty structures, and delayed refunds imposed high compliance costs—especially on MSMEs and exporters.
READ | Inside GST 2.0 reforms: Will India’s tax overhaul work?
Revenue stabilisation and compliance expansion
The Goods and Services Tax collections tell a story of gradual stabilisation rather than immediate buoyancy. After a weak start and a pandemic-era dip, revenues crossed ₹20 lakh crore in 2023-24, reflecting better compliance rather than higher rates .
GST Revenue Growth (₹ in lakh crore)
| Financial Year | Gross GST Collection |
| 2017–18 | 7.41 |
| 2018–19 | 11.77 |
| 2019–20 | 12.22 |
| 2020–21 | 11.36 |
| 2021–22 | 14.83 |
| 2022–23 | 18.1 |
| 2023–24 | 20.14 |
Source: Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India (2024)
This improvement owes more to enforcement than generosity. E-invoicing, analytics-driven scrutiny, and tighter input tax credit rules expanded the taxpayer base to over 1.4 crore registrations. Formalisation followed compliance, not the other way around.
GST 2.0: Simplification by design, not expansion
Recent GST Council decisions—often described as “GST 2.0”—mark a shift from structural ambition to administrative realism. The focus has been on rate rationalisation, fewer exemptions, and technology-led enforcement.
Rate adjustments have lowered taxes on mass-consumption items while consolidating the burden on luxury and sin goods. E-invoicing thresholds have been reduced, pre-filled returns expanded, and refund timelines shortened. These changes aim to reduce disputes, not reinvent the system.
| Category | Old Rate | New Rate |
| Baby Food & Nutrition | 12% | 5% |
| Medical Equipment | 12% | 5% |
| Tractors | 12% | 5% |
| Soap & Detergent | 18% | 12% |
| Two-Wheelers (up to 350cc) | 28% | 18% |
| Hybrid Cars | 28% | 18% |
| SUVs & Luxury Cars | 28% + cess | 40% |
| Tobacco Products | 28% + cess | 40% |
Table 2: Key Rate Revisions under GST 2.0
Source: GST Council Notification No. 12/2025
Crucially, the Council has resisted the temptation to widen GST’s scope prematurely. Petroleum products, electricity, and real estate remain outside the net—more due to federal politics than technical difficulty.
READ | GST reforms must address blocked credits and rate mismatches
The federal bargain — and its limits
GST’s most durable achievement lies in institution-building. The GST Council has survived political churn and revenue stress, functioning as a forum for negotiation rather than diktat. Compensation to states during the pandemic preserved trust, even as borrowing blurred fiscal boundaries.
That trust is now thinner. Delays in dispute resolution, inverted duty structures, and blocked credits continue to strain state finances. The long-delayed GST Appellate Tribunal remains incomplete, prolonging litigation and uncertainty.
The Goods and Services Tax no longer needs grand narratives. It needs quieter fixes. Three priorities stand out.
First, rate stability must trump frequent tinkering. Businesses plan investment on predictability, not promises.
Second, compliance costs for MSMEs must fall through tiered filings and faster refunds, not exemptions.
Third, dispute resolution must be institutionalised. Without a functional appellate system, trust erodes faster than revenue rises.
GST has evolved from a tax reform into fiscal infrastructure. It underpins compliance, enables data-driven policymaking, and anchors cooperative federalism. Its success now depends less on ambition than on restraint.
If managed with discipline, the Goods and Services Tax can remain India’s most consequential institutional reform of the last decade—not by expanding endlessly, but by working reliably.
Sankalp Agarwal is a student of commerce, and Dr Vijyapu Prasanna Kumar is Professor at School of Banking and Finance, Jindal Global University.