2017 · GS Paper 2 · Q11 · 15 marks

Explain the salient features of the constitution One Hundred and First Amendment Act, 2016. Do you think it is efficacious enough to remove cascading effect of taxes and provide for common national market for goods and services?

In short

The 101st Amendment Act, 2016 created GST through concurrent taxing power, destination-based IGST and the GST Council, and it has largely removed cascading and internal tax barriers. Petroleum, aviation fuel and electricity remain outside GST, so the common national market is still incomplete.

Model answer

Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026

Introduction
The 101st Amendment Act, 2016 laid the constitutional base for GST, launched on 1 July 2017, to replace tax-on-tax and border barriers with one national market.
Salient Features of the 101st Amendment Act, 2016
•

Concurrent power

Article 246A lets Parliament and states tax the same supply, with Parliament alone taxing inter-state supplies.

•

IGST and Council

Article 269A provides destination-based IGST, and Article 279A creates the GST Council with two-thirds voting weight for states and a three-fourths decision rule.

•

Subsumption and compensation

Entries 92 and 92C of the Union List and 52 and 55 of the State List were deleted, alcohol was excluded, and states were promised five years of compensation.

Efficacy Against Cascading and for a Common Market
•

Credit chain restored

Input tax credit flows across goods, services and states, and e-way bills from April 2018 replaced check-posts.

•

Gaps remain

Petroleum, aviation fuel and electricity stay outside GST, credits blocked under Section 17(5) still cascade, and multiple slabs caused inverted duties until the September 2025 move to 5% and 18% with a 40% de-merit rate.

•

Fragmented compliance

Multi-state firms still register separately in every state, and appeals waited years for a tribunal.

Way Forward
•

Complete the reform

Phase in natural gas and aviation fuel under Article 279A(5), allow centralised registration for multi-state firms, and make the GST Appellate Tribunal fully functional.

Conclusion
The Amendment is largely efficacious against cascading and internal barriers, but energy outside GST and fragmented compliance leave the common national market incomplete.

This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.

Hand-drawn diagram: Before and after the 101st Amendment. Before and after the 101st Amendment. Comparison of Pre-GST regime and GST regime
Diagram: Before and after the 101st Amendment

Practise this question

  1. 1Get the answer sheet

    Sized for this question.

  2. 2Write your answer

    Timed, by hand.

  3. 3Get it marked

    Your score and what to fix.

Share this questionWhatsAppTelegramXLinkedIn

This chapter in the exam

Amendments & Basic Structure4 questions

Asked in 4 of 14 sittings since 2013

2013
–
2014
–
2015
–
2016
–
2017
1
2018
–
2019
1
2020
–
2021
–
2022
–
2023
1
2024
–
2025
1
2026
–

All 4 questions, sorted by sub-topic, with model answers and practice.

Question from the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2017 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.

Ghissu

OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·