INTRODUCTION
The Goods and Services Tax in India represents a landmark reform in indirect taxation with crucial constitutional implications.1 The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016,2 has introduced comprehensive GST, which is primarily intended to eliminate the complexities associated with the multiplicity of taxes and the corresponding effect on the flow of tax.3 This amendment fundamentally transformed the fiscal federal structure of the country. It empowered both the Parliament and state legislatures to exert concurrent authority in levying taxes on the supply of goods and services, marking a significant shift in the taxation framework and enhancing cooperative federalism. The Constitutional amendment has introduced GST on the supply of goods and services, and not on their manufacture like Central and State Excise, or provision of services like Service Tax, or sale of goods like State VAT (Value-Added Tax), etc. It is a destination-based consumption tax. By the Constitutional amendment, India has introduced a dual GST model wherein both the Centre and the States would levy and collect GST on a common tax base.
The 2016 Constitution Amendment Act significantly impacted India’s taxation system by implementing the goods and services tax. This reform aimed to establish a seamless national market by replacing various indirect taxes, including excise duty, service tax, and sales tax, thereby enhancing economic efficiency. The amendment conferred concurrent taxing powers to both the central and state governments, introducing a constitutional authority known as the GST Council responsible for making tax-related recommendations. Overall, the Amendment Act sought to simplify the taxation framework and alleviate the compliance burden on taxpayers, promoting a more integrated and streamlined approach to indirect taxation in India.4 The Indian GST has been developed through a collaborative, consultative process involving both the central and state governments, enabling joint administration. This collaborative foundation positions GST as a potentially ideal federal tax system. However, an examination of its effect, efficacy and implementation is necessary as around one decade has elapsed since its introduction. The constitutional amendment that facilitated the introduction of GST has merely established a general framework, leaving unresolved questions regarding its adaptability to the particular concerns of both the states and the people at large.
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF TAX LAW AND GST: A NEW DIMENSION
The “First Discussion Paper on Goods and Services Tax in India,”5 published by the Empowered Committee, outlines the fundamental aspects of the proposed Goods and Services Tax reform and elucidates the intricacies of the GST Model. It articulates the necessity for a constitutional amendment to facilitate the introduction of GST, highlighting the distinct tax powers of the Centre and the States. The Discussion Paper clarifies that while the Centre has the authority to tax services and goods up to the point of production, only States can tax the sale of goods. However, States are not permitted to levy taxes on the supply of services, and conversely, the Centre cannot impose taxes on sales. To address these inconsistencies, the Discussion Paper advocates for a constitutional amendment that would establish a cohesive GST structure, ensuring it aligns with the federal framework. Following extensive discussions between the Centre and the States, with support from the Empowered Committee, the constitutional amendment process culminated in the passing of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, facilitating the implementation of GST in India.6
The Constitutional framework governing tax law in India is predominantly established by Article 265 and Article 246A. These Articles, in conjunction with the Seventh Schedule, delineate the allocation of taxation authority between the Union and State governments, thereby defining the jurisdiction and responsibilities related to taxation within the Indian legal system. As per the Constitutional scheme of tax law under Article 265, “[no] tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.”7 Thus, what Article 265 contemplates is that: (i) there must be a law; (ii) that law must authorize levy of tax; and (iii) the tax has to be levied or collected as authorized. In Tarachand Logistic Solutions v. State of Andhra Pradesh,8 the Supreme Court held that the levy of tax has to be explicit. There cannot be exaction of tax by implication or by following an interpretative process. It is trite law that the charging Section is the core of a taxing statute. This provision is based against the idea of unjust enrichment. In New India Industries Ltd. v. Union of India,9 the Bombay High Court held that taxes illegally levied must be refunded. The doctrine of unjust enrichment has to be applied after having regard to the facts of each case. Natural corollary to this is that a subject is not to be taxed unless the words of the relevant taxing statute unambiguously imposes the tax on him. Clarifying the scope and ambit of Article 265 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar,10 it prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without the authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State, at its whims and fancies, cannot burden the citizens without the authority of law. While Article 266 of the Constitution provides for a consolidated fund, Article 267 provides for a contingency fund. The Constitution of India provides, under Articles 268 to 281, the distribution of revenue between the Union and the States. However, the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, brought about a significant merger by contemplating a fiscal umbrella encompassing GST.
By the 2016 Constitutional amendment, new Articles 246A, 269A and 279A were inserted. Amendments were also made in Articles 248, 249, 250, 268, 269, 270, 271, 286, 366 and 368. Article 268A was omitted. Amendments were also made in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in List I and List II. Article 269A and Article 279A were also inserted by the same constitutional amendment. The 2016 amendment to the Constitution of India significantly restructured the country’s taxation system by introducing the Goods and Services Tax. This amendment established a new constitutional framework allowing both the Center and the States to levy taxes on goods and services through the powers conferred by Article 246A. Furthermore, it facilitated the creation of the Goods and Services Council as outlined in Article 279A, a body responsible for the administration of GST. In addition to these provisions, the amendment modified existing Articles, specifically Article 286, to prohibit states from imposing taxes on transactions that occur outside their territorial limits. To clarify the application of the GST, definitions for “Goods and Services Tax” and “services” were also added to Article 366, thereby refining the legal understanding and implementation of the tax structure across India. In Magma Fincorp Limited v. State of Maharashtra,11 the Bombay High Court held that “goods and services tax”, under Article 366(12A), means “any tax on supply of goods, or services or both except taxes on the supply of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption.” Article 246A stipulates that both the Parliament and the State legislatures have the power to legislate on GST12 as follows:
“Article 246A. Special provision with respect to goods and services tax. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 246 and 254, Parliament, and, subject to Clause (2), the Legislature of every State, have power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax imposed by the Union or by such State.
(2) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax where the supply of goods, or of services, or both takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Explanation.–The provisions of this Article shall, in respect of goods and services tax referred to in Clause (5) of Article 279A, take effect from the date recommended by the Goods and Services Tax Council.”
Article 246A of the Constitution contains special provisions with respect to goods and services tax, while Article 246 has laid down the subject-matter of laws made by the Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. Article 254 contains provisions for inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and by the legislatures of the States. Article 254 (1) stipulates that where a State law “is repugnant” to a Parliamentary law which Parliament is competent to enact or to a provision of an existing law “with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List”, then the law made by Parliament is to prevail and the law made by the legislature of a State shall “to the extent of the repugnancy” be void. Thus, the scope of Article 246A is to be determine in the light of Article 254. The scope and ambit of Article 246A has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Forum for People’s Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal,13 and it was observed that Article 246A begins with a non-obstante provision, giving it overriding force over Articles 246 and 254. Under Clause (1), Parliament and, subject to Clause (2), the legislature of a State have the power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax imposed by the Union or by the State. Under Clause (2), Parliament has been entrusted with the exclusive power to make laws with respect to goods and services tax where the supply of goods, services or both takes place in the course of interstate trade and commerce. Citing Article 246A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,14 held that as the Parliament has been conferred power to make law with respect to goods and services, the legislative power of the Parliament is plenary. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by 246A of the Constitution, may enact appropriate law held by the High Court of Sikkim in Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.15
Article 269 of the Indian Constitution addresses the taxation framework involving taxes that are assigned and collected by the Union government but are designated for states. This includes taxes related to inter-state sales, railway fares, and a variety of other transactions. In the context of the implementation of the GST regime, this Article particularly pertains to taxes on inter-state commerce that were operational prior to the GST’s introduction. This encompasses taxes on the consignment of goods as well as certain terminal taxes that affect various forms of trade across state lines. Further, the Allahabad High Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.,16 held that Article 269 of the Constitution empowered Parliament to make laws on the taxes to be levied on the sale or purchase taking place in the course of Inter-State Trade or Commerce. The 2016 Amendment of the Constitution has inserted Article 269A which provides that the GST on inter-State trade or commerce is imposed by the Government of India, with the allocation of this tax between the Union and State governments governed by legislation passed by Parliament, informed by the GST Council. Notably, the legislation clarifies that imports into India are regarded as supplies within inter-state trade. The tax revenue allocated to individual States will not enter the Consolidated Fund of India; instead, it will be directed to the respective State governments. Additionally, any tax revenue a State collects to satisfy its obligations under Article 246A will also be exempt from contributing to the Consolidated Fund of India. Parliament has the power to create laws that define the “place of supply,” which is crucial in determining the occurrence of supply in the context of inter-state trade or commerce. Interpreting Article 269A, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,17 observed:
“Article 269A provides that GST on supplies in the course of inter-state trade or commerce shall be levied and collected by the Union Government. The manner of apportionment between the Union and the States has to be provided by Parliament on the recommendations of the GST Council. The explanation to Article 269A(1) states that supply of goods or services in the course of import shall be deemed to be supply in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Clause (5) provides that Parliament may by law formulate principles for determining the place of supply and when the supply of goods or services takes place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce…Article 269A stipulates that Parliament may by law formulate principles for determining: (a) the place of supply and; (b) when the supply of goods or services or both takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.”18
Article 270 provides for taxes levied and distributed between the Union and the States. In Union of India v. Hind Energy,19 the Supreme Court held that under Article 270 of the Constitution, the Parliament can levy cess for a specific purpose under a law made by it. Article 270 of the Constitution, thus, specifically empowers Parliament to levy any cess by law. Thus, in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India,20 the Gujarat High Court held that the legislature is vested with the powers to firstly impose any tax and secondly make any law with respect to the imposition of goods and services tax laws. The 2016 Constitutional amendment the Article 270 has substituted the words, figures, and letter “articles 268, 269, 269A” in Article 270. After Article 279 of the Constitution, the new Article 279A has also been inserted by the 2016 Constitutional amendment to constitute the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council). It states that: “[t]he President shall, within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, by order, constitute a Council to be called the Goods and Services Tax Council.”21 Thus, the GST Council has been constituted. It is a constitutional institution comprising, as its members, the Finance Ministers of the Union and the States, including Union Territories, with members of the legislatures. In the context of the GST Council, the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions,22 observed:
“Article 279-A provides for the Goods and Services Tax Council (hereafter “GST Council”). This provision also changes the underlying constitutional philosophy to a certain extent. Sub-clause (1) of Article 279-A creates a new constitutional institution; (2) confers upon it the power to make recommendations to the Union and the States; (3) provides that certain functions of other constitutional institutions shall be carried out on the basis of the recommendations of the GST Council; (4) has overarching jurisdiction and carries extensive functions in relation to the design and structure of the goods and services tax; (5) has substantial role in resolution of disputes amongst the executive governments relating to GST, etc.”23
With the enactment of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, Entry 84 of the Union List has been restructured to incorporate duties of excise on the following goods manufactured or produced in India, namely-(a) petroleum crude; (b) high speed diesel; (c) motor spirit (commonly known as petrol); (d) natural gas; (e) aviation turbine fuel; and (f) tobacco and tobacco products. As per the Constitution Amendment Act, 2016, List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution was also amended. By the Amendment, Entry 52 (Entry Tax) Entry 55 (Advertisement tax) were omitted. Entry 54 (Tax on sale or purchase of goods) and Entry 62 (Luxury tax) were amended. The amendment also amended Entry 54 “Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of Entry 92 A of List I”, was substituted by the following Entry:
“54. Taxes on the sale of petroleum crude, high-speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol), natural gas, aviation turbine fuel and alcoholic liquor for human consumption, but not including sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce or sale in the course of international trade or commerce of such goods.”24
In Prosper Jewel Arcade LLP v. Deputy Commissioner,25 the Karnataka High Court held that the State legislation is denuded of its powers to make law on taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than petroleum products and liquor for human consumption as per the amended Entry 54. In Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.,26 the Supreme Court held that Entry 54 of the State List has been restructured to provide for taxes on the sale of petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (commonly known as petrol), natural gas, aviation turbine fuel and alcoholic liquor for human consumption, other than in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Entry 62 (luxury tax) were amended as under:
“62. Taxes on entertainments and amusements to the extent levied and collected by a Panchayat or a Municipality or a Regional Council or a District Council.”
The Entry 62 of List II, Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, as it stood before the Amendment of the Constitution, was: “Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling.” The Kerala High Court, in Ison George v. State of Kerala,27 held that the post amendment the List II, was changed, wherein the previous entry of luxury tax was substituted with “Taxes on entertainments and amusements to the extent levied and collected by a Panchayat or a Municipality or a Regional Council or a District Council”. Thus, after the amendment, taxes on certain items have been vested with the State Legislature. Further, in Kay Pan Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,28 the Allahabad High Court held that Entry 62 also stood amended, providing the field of legislation limited to taxes on entertainments and amusements.
The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, which enacted the Goods and Services Tax, presents a dual impact on India’s federal structure. It simultaneously enhances federalism and centralizes economic authority. On one hand, the amendment fosters cooperative federalism by introducing concurrent taxation powers through Article 246A, allowing both the Centre and states to levy taxes. This collaboration is further reinforced by the establishment of the GST Council, which includes State Finance Ministers in the decision-making process, thereby promoting joint governance in tax matters. On the other hand, the Act centralizes power by abolishing existing indirect taxes at both the state and central levels, leading to a singular national tax framework. The GST Council, while inclusive of state representatives, notably empowers the Union Finance Minister, thus reflecting a shift in economic control towards the Centre. This interplay between enhancement of federal powers and centralization is a key characteristic of the GST implementation under this constitutional amendment. Article 246A established a framework enabling both the Parliament and state legislatures to impose GST, which introduces a concurrent taxation system while enhancing the financial autonomy of states. This amendment led to the formation of the GST Council, a constitutional entity chaired by the Union Finance Minister and comprising state finance ministers, tasked with collaborating on tax rates and regulation decisions. This arrangement fosters coordination between the central government and state authorities. Additionally, the amendment contains a provision for compensating states for any revenue losses incurred due to the GST implementation for five years, addressing apprehensions regarding possible financial strains on the states. By substituting a multitude of state and central indirect taxes with a single GST, the recent amendment aims to foster a cohesive national market and centralize tax authority, indicating a movement towards economic centralization. Although individual states are empowered to impose GST on transactions within their boundaries, the Union government retains the sole jurisdiction over GST related to inter-state commerce, thereby centralizing a critical facet of economic engagement. The GST Council serves as a cooperative platform to address GST-related issues; however, it is chaired by the Union Finance Minister, which endows the central government with considerable influence over decisions that impact the revenue of both federal and state governments. Commenting upon the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions,29 observed that the amendment:
“[I]ntroduces a fundamental re-ordering of the constitutional premise of taxation by the Union and State Governments in India. It is the framework to enable the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). It confers new powers upon the Union Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, and also creates institutions that have a significant bearing on the federal character of the Constitution.”30
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF GST
The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax in India marked a pivotal restructuring of the taxation powers previously held by both central and state governments. This reform was aimed at fostering a system of cooperative federalism and creating a unified national market. By recalibrating the division of taxation authority, GST aims to enhance efficiency and compliance in the tax system, facilitating smoother inter-state trade and economic integration across the country. To effectively execute the constitutional framework established for the GST, Article 246A of the Constitution of India bestows upon both the Parliament and state legislatures the authority to legislate concurrently regarding GST matters. Notably, while this concurrent power allows for a degree of collaboration between the two legislative bodies, Parliament maintains sole authority over transactions that involve inter-state trade, ensuring a unified regulatory framework across state lines. Article 269A outlines the framework for the levy and collection of GST specifically concerning inter-state supplies and imports. The responsibility for collecting this tax initially lies with the Central Government. Following its collection, the distribution of the collected GST is carried out in accordance with the recommendations made by the GST Council. This Article is critical as it delineates not only the jurisdictional authority of tax collection but also establishes the procedures for the equitable distribution of tax revenue among different states, thereby promoting revenue neutrality in a federal structure.
Article 279A established the GST Council as a collaborative platform comprising representatives from both the Central and State governments. The primary purpose of the Council is to facilitate decision-making on various matters of the GST framework, ensuring a cooperative approach in the implementation and management of this significant tax reform in India. This structure enables the Centre and the States to work together effectively in addressing issues related to GST, including tax rates, exemptions, and other operational aspects that impact both levels of government and the business community. The formation of the GST Council signifies a critical step towards achieving a unified taxation system across the nation, enhancing both efficiency and compliance in tax administration. The active role of the GST Council has been outlined by the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions,31 as follows:
“The GST Council was constituted in September 2016. It is a constitutional institution comprising as its members the Finance Ministers of the Union and the States including Union Territories with members of the legislatures. It has the authority to recommend to the Union and the States on various facets of GST, including Model GST laws, principles to determine the place of supply, levy of the tax, design of GST, dispute settlement, special provisions for a special category of States, and so forth. GST Council’s recommendations led Parliament to enacted legislation.” 32
Under Article 246A of the Constitution, the Parliament has granted comprehensive authority to legislate regarding goods and services. This provision establishes the legislative power of the Parliament as plenary, indicating that it holds full and absolute power to create laws within this domain, without limitation from other governmental bodies. This constitutional framework underscores the Parliament’s role in regulating economic activities involving goods and services, enabling it to address a range of fiscal and commercial matters effectively.33 Consequently, the Parliament has enacted the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,34 to make provisions for the levy and collection of tax on intra-state supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Parliament also enacted the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,35 the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,36 and the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017.37
CONCLUSION
The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, serves as a pivotal legal framework for the introduction of the GST in India. This amendment uniquely empowers both the Union Parliament and State Legislatures to enact laws related to GST, thereby ensuring a cooperative federal structure. Key provisions introduced by this amendment include Article 246A, which outlines special law-making powers for GST, Article 269A, which pertains to the levy and collection of GST on inter-state trade, and Article 279A. The latter Article establishes the Goods and Services Tax Council, a joint body comprising representatives from the Centre and the States, tasked with providing recommendations on significant aspects of GST compliance and implementation. This Council plays a crucial role in shaping the federal dynamics of the Constitution concerning economic governance. The GST introduces new authority for the Union Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, along with the establishment of institutions that significantly impact the federal structure of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.,38 held that the “Article 279A(6) indicates that in the discharge of its functions, the GST Council is to be guided by the need for a harmonised structure of goods and services tax and the development of a harmonised national market for goods and services.”39 This observation of the Supreme Court emphasises the importance of harmony in the context of co-operative federalism, particularly regarding the functioning of the GST Council. It highlights that federal arrangements require both States and the Union to align harmoniously as they collaborate on taxation. The concept of harmony entails achieving a balance and mutual co-existence among the partners. A quorum for the GST Council consists of half of its total members, and decisions are made by a three-fourths majority of the weighted votes from those present and voting. The principle of harmony does not demand complete agreement on all matters but rather emphasises mutual respect, coexistence, and equality among the units involved in the federal framework.
The aforementioned cooperative federalism approach provides a practical and constitutionally sound framework for governance through tax institutions. It emphasises a balance of power that permits states to create their own programs in order to uphold national minimum standards, a concept widely recognized as “cooperative federalism.” 40 This model fosters collaboration between different levels of government, ensuring that state-specific needs are met while still adhering to overarching national guidelines. The aforementioned changes through the 2016 Constitutional amendment “are welcome in so far as they indicate the gradual emergence of the co-operative trends of federalism”41 in India. Greater cooperation between the Centre and States is essential and is expected to develop over time as the years progress. It is true that the theory of “cooperative federalism is indeed accepted widely today.”42 The theory of cooperative federalism, however, raises critical questions regarding its relation to competitive federalism. One key issue is whether the evidence supporting cooperative federalism has entirely dismissed the competitive federalism model. Furthermore, an essential inquiry is how effectively cooperative federalism accounts for regulatory powers. This includes the capacity of the GST Council to eliminate, either fully or partially, the discretionary authority of states, as well as the imposition of mandates and constraints on state power. Additionally, the theory must be evaluated in terms of strategies of the GST Council, such as employing crossover and tax sanctions, to incentivize states to adopt policies. These questions require a thorough examination of the implications of cooperative federalism and its capacity to accurately describe the contemporary cooperative federalism dynamics in India.
*****
Footnotes
1. See generally, T. M. Thomas Isaac, “GST and Federal India,” 48(3) India International Centre Quarterly, 34-46 (2021); Sudipto Banerjee and Sonia Prasad. “Small Businesses in the GST Regime,” 52 (38) Economic and Political Weekly, 18-22 (2017); Upender Gupta, “Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST),” 28 (2) National Law School of India Review, 134-142 (2016); Sumit Dutt Majumder, “GST and E- Commerce,” 28 (2) National Law School of India Review, 123-133 (2016).
2. The amendment received the assent of the President on the September 8, 2016.
3. K. Gopakumar, “Multiplicitym of Taxes and Exclusion of Revenue – Potential Commodities: Highlighting Two Crucial Issues of GST in India,” 58 (4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 393-420, 394 (2016).
4. Alok Prasanna Kumar, “For a Mess of Potage: The GST’s Promise of Increased Revenue to States Comes at the Cost of the Federal Structure of the Constitution,” 28(2) National Law School of India Review, 97-113, 98 (2016).
5. Released by the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers (Government of India, New Delhi, 2009).
6. See, State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions, (2023)15 SCC 578.
7. Constitution of India, Article 265.
8. III (2025) ACC 737 (SC).
9. AIR 1990 Bom 239.
10. AIR 2018 SC 3606.
11. [2020] 75 GSTR 241 (Bom).
12. See Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 700.
13. (2021) 8 SCC 599.
14. AIR 2021 SC 366.
15. [2018] 59 GSTR 56.
16. 2018 (Suppl.) ADJ 130.
17. (2022) 10 SCC 700.
18. Id., paras. 81 and 82.
19. AIR 2018 SC 5318.
20. 2021 (375) ELT 497 (Guj.).
21. Article 269A(1).
22. (2023) 15 SCC 578.
23. Id., para. 11.
24. Entry 54, List II (State List).
25. 2021 [50] GSTL 15.
26. AIR 2021 SC 4407.
27. AIR 2020 Ker 137.
28. [2023] 108 GSTR 178 (All).
29. (2023) 15 SCC 578.
30. Id., para. 2.
31. (2023) 15 SCC 578.
32. Id., para. 7.
33. See Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2021 SC 366, para. 37.
34. Act No. 12 of 2017. The Act came into force on and from April 12, 2017.
35. Act No. 13 of 2017. The Act came into force on and from July 1, 2017.
36. Act No. 14 of 2017. The Act came into force on and from July 1, 2017.
37. Act No. 15 of 2017. The Act came into force on and from July 1, 2017.
38. AIR 2021 SC 4407.
39. Id., para. 34.
40. Manisha Patel, and Allie Reilly. “Cooperative Federalism: A Path to Proactive Managed Retreat,” 35(3) Natural Resources and Environment, 20-25, 22 (2021).
41. S. P. Aiyer, “India’s Emerging Co-operative Federalism,” 21(4) The Indian Journal of Political Science, 307-314, 314 (1960).
42. Joseph F. Zimmerman, “National-State Relations: Cooperative Federalism in the Twentieth Century,” 31(2) Publius, 15-30, 16 (2001).