“Mentor’s Comments”
- https://indianexpress.com/
article/opinion/columns/gst- concessions-on-covid-relief- nirmala-sitharaman-7353390/ - In the intro, mention the unanimous adoption of GST through 101st Constitution Amendment Act.
- In the body mention the issues with the argument for special treatment such as governance issues and contradiction in the welfare state in which unequal treatment is given to citizens in different states, implications for federalism, the locational or geographic advantage enjoyed by the state GST collected by State does not represent the revenue of that state etc.
- You can conclude by mentioning the need to continue the equal weightage to the states to preserve the idea of federalism.
Idpay_HJ2s89guguFYwg@Swatantra
Harshaa
Your answer is again very short, please start writing in a bit of detail, introduction is good, then write in 1-2 lines what this argument is that is made by some richer states.
Next you have written some problems that is- cooperative federalism in danger and inter-state supplies,consensus on GST already achieved(in parliament, GST council etc) ,that is good. Mention some more points-
Equality of all states- if disturbed it will open demands for preferential rights in other spheres too
The reason why some states have a higher revenue collection is because such states enjoy locational or geographical advantages
Argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue
No transfers based on a formula
In conclusion you have argued about preference based on covid cases, I don’t think that should also be done because it will open a Pandora’s box-states will start demanding preferential treatment in case of cyclones, accidents etc Also, most of the covid cases, atleast on paper, are in richer states only. You can write such arguments but then you need to justify it by giving some strong points.
Read some other answers. Keep writing.
2.5/10
Payment id-HJHAZEWKSzM3CX
Ankita
You have written some points well. First mention what this argument is and how it will help richer states.
Then you can point out the flaws. You have mentioned them, you can add some-
Arguing for special treatment of some states is a dangerous idea, particularly in governance, and more so in a welfare state — For, this would open the gates for elitist arguments such as special rights for bigger taxpayers, unequal voting rights in elections etc
The argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue. Such transfers are made for improving horizontal fiscal imbalances in a federation.
Rest of the points are good, point b, c, d can be merged in a single one about inter-state supplies.
Conclusion is good, keep writing. 🙂
Payment Id: pay HFrdyJMOEZ9967. Please review, Sir.
Nice one , can be better
Issues with argument are :
Special treatment can increase the interstate disparity
States which are contributing higher are also depends on other states
Against the idea of equity as it would defy the centre’s inclusive policy to reduce horizontal imbalances in growth.
Against the idea of cooperative federalism .
Sumita
You can mention what the argument is and how will it benefit rich states in 1-2 lines.
Next mention that GST and its basic features were unanimously adopted and endorsed by Parliament and each of the state legislature,all sections and clauses were discussed and recommended by the GST Council after complete consent – reopening debates will serve no purpose.
Points you have mentioned are good.
Also mention- major chunk of IGST revenue that is given to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state, so wrong to say it is done on the basis of some other formula.
Conclusion is good.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
4.5/10
Please review it sir
Pay I’d -pay_HHhwlNw9vfR4HH
Shubham,
You have made a nice attempt, but the answer is very generic. Please go through the article attached above, you will get good points.
In intro, mention 101st amendment act, also gst was passed with full consensus between union and states- reopening debates will serve no purpose.
In issues, you can add some points:
Special treatment will make the states more unequal- and this would also open the gates for elitist arguments such as special rights for bigger taxpayers, unequal voting rights in elections etc
Inter-state supply of goods- not right to say that the GST collected in a state represents the revenue of that particular state
Some states enjoy locational or geographical advantages
Argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue
Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state
These points should be added to make the answer multi- dimensional.
Instead of explaining one point in detail, try to include more points.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
UPI Reference No.-114715258066
Murari
You have written well. Addressed some of the core demands of the question.
You can write in a point wise format also, you can include some more points like :
Inter-state supply of goods- not right to say that the GST collected in a state represents the revenue of that particular state
Some states enjoy locational or geographical advantages
Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state- No “formula” so to say.
Rest of the points are good, stick with them.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
pay_HHogiMPYpQ87sC
Katikey
You have understood the issue well, but I think you should allocate less space to the argument and more to the issues with the argument.
Just mention what the rich states are arguing for in 1-2 lines and then move on to the issues with the argument.
Your points are good, some you can add:
Special treatment will make the states more unequal- and this would also open the gates for elitist arguments such as special rights for bigger taxpayers, unequal voting rights in elections etc
Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state- No “formula” so to say.
Argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue. Such transfers are made for improving horizontal fiscal imbalances in a federation.
End with the saying need is to improve cooperative federalism, not disrupt it.
Nice attempt. Keep writing.
ref id- #0000422539
Mradul
You have started with ‘did not follow equal consensual…’; it is not clear what you mean by it.
Rest of the answer is quite good, you can cut short points like ‘cesses’ in the argument as it is not the issue here, instead you can add points in issues with the argument. Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state- No “formula” so to say.
Way forward and conclusion is good.
Nice attempt, keep writing. 🙂
the correct word here would be “mutual” (i wanted to explain how things aren’t going well with both center and state) but i wrote consensual in flow. wrong word wrong context. will be careful next time @Swatantra sir.
pay_HH4AoVE2qPd386 @Swatantra
Shivanshu
You have made a nice attempt, but I think the answer could be more organized. You have started well, then mention what this new argument is in 1-2 lines. Next mention the issues.
The first 3 points you have mentioned in issues can be combined into one- inequality will bolster elitist argument. Next, some more points should be mentioned :
Inter-state supply of goods- not right to say that the GST collected in a state represents the revenue of that particular state
Some states enjoy locational or geographical advantages
Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state- No “formula” so to say.
Argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue. Such transfers are made for improving horizontal fiscal imbalances in a federation.
Conclusion is good.
Keep writing, you can take help from the article above if short of content. 🙂
3.5/10
Order id: 0000422561
@Swatantra sir please review.
answers attached.
Vishnu
Nice answer, you have mentioned most of the points.
Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state – so no “formula” so to say, hence the argument of biasness in transfer is also not true.
Argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue. Such transfers are made for improving horizontal fiscal imbalances in a federation.
These points can be mentioned, rest of the points are good, stick with them.
In conclusion, you can use the term ‘cooperative federalism’.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Payment id HHU8LODcXby9Db
Arpit
I think you are writing very generic answers, please go through the article mentioned above.
Introduction is good. Next mention what the arguments are being made by richer states like Mahrashtra, TN. Gujarat, K’tka etc– it’s not about political bipartanship but they are arguing that since the “contribute” more to the GST pool, they should be given special treatment. Next mention the flaws with this argument.
You have to be a bit more technical here. 1st point that you have written is good.
Then you can mention:
Special treatment will make the states more unequal- and this would also open the gates for elitist arguments such as special rights for bigger taxpayers, unequal voting rights in elections etc
Quantum of IGST revenue that is settled to any state is directly related to the returns filed in that state- No “formula” so to say.
Argument of unequal transfers of central receipts is also untrue. Such transfers are made for improving horizontal fiscal imbalances in a federation.
Also, there is issue of inter-state supply of goods, so revenue generated in one state can’t be said to be that state’s only.
Plus some states have geopgraphical/ locational advantages especially coastal states.
Suggestions and conclusion is okay.
Read some other answers, take help from the article if you are short on content. Keep writing. 🙂