The GST Council under Article 279A is a constitutional experiment in pooled sovereignty but its ‘recommendatory’ character has been tested by the Mohit Minerals judgment. Critically analyse.

Introduction:

The 101st Constitutional Amendment Act 2016 inserted Article 279A and created the GST Council, a constitutional experiment in pooled sovereignty whose 'recommendatory' character was tested by Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (19 May 2022, 2022 INSC 526).

Constitutional architecture: Article 246A confers concurrent power on the Union and States to tax goods and services; Article 269A covers inter-state supplies through IGST; Article 279A(9) gives the Centre one-third weight and the States two-thirds combined, with decisions requiring a 75% majority — a pooled-sovereignty design without precedent in Indian fiscal federalism, and a five-year GST Compensation cess (2017) that ran until June 2022.

Mohit Minerals: The Supreme Court held that GST Council recommendations are persuasive, not binding, on Parliament and State Legislatures, reading a federal trust-based design into Article 279A; the Court anchored the verdict in cooperative federalism, allowing State legislatures genuine fiscal voice on rate-setting and exemptions.

Governance friction: Delayed GST Compensation payments to Tamil Nadu and Kerala in 2022-23, the four-slab plus cess structure under scrutiny at the 56th GST Council Meeting rate-rationalisation decisions, extension of the compensation cess to repay back-to-back loans until March 2026, and the absence of an operational dispute-resolution mechanism under Article 279A(11) have strained relations.

Way forward / Conclusion:

A reasoned-decision norm, published voting records, an operational Article 279A(11) dispute mechanism and a sunset on the GST Compensation cess can reconcile pooled sovereignty with State fiscal autonomy.