Constitution of India
Article 246A: Special provision with respect to goods and services tax
Part XI — Relations between the Union and the States (Chapter I — Legislative Relations, Distribution of Legislative Powers)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Notwithstanding Articles 246 and 254, both Parliament and the Legislature of every State (subject to Clause 2) have power to make laws with respect to GST imposed by the Union or by such State. WHAT IT MEANS: Creates a 'simultaneous' legislative power over GST for both Centre and States — distinct from and overriding the traditional Union/State/Concurrent List framework. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Simultaneous Power — different from 'concurrent power' under Article 246(2) because no repugnancy clause (Article 254) applies; Centre and States are treated as co-equal legislators on GST.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to GST where the supply of goods, or of services, or both takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. WHAT IT MEANS: Only Parliament can legislate on IGST (Integrated GST) — States cannot legislate on cross-border supplies. This is the constitutional basis for the IGST Act, 2017. KEY DOCTRINE: Exclusive Central Competence for Inter-State GST — preserves unity of the national market while Clause (1) allows concurrent intra-State GST (CGST + SGST).
Explanation
WHAT IT SAYS: The provisions of this article, in respect of GST referred to in clause (5) of Article 279A, shall take effect from the date recommended by the GST Council. WHAT IT MEANS: For five specified petroleum products (petroleum crude, high-speed diesel, motor spirit, natural gas, aviation turbine fuel) and alcoholic liquor for human consumption, Article 246A kicks in only from a date the GST Council recommends — until then, old tax regime continues for these items. KEY DOCTRINE: Deferred Application Doctrine — the GST Council acts as a constitutional gatekeeper for transitioning excluded commodities into the GST fold.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. No direct foreign constitutional borrowing — Article 246A is an ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION. No foreign constitution has an identical provision merging Centre-State indirect taxation powers into a single overriding article. India adapted elements from dual-GST models studied in Canada (federal-provincial GST) and Australia (single GST with revenue sharing). INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Simultaneous Power Model — Unlike Canada's strictly divided federal/provincial GST or Australia's single-tier national GST, India created a unique 'dual GST' where both Centre and States levy GST simultaneously on the same transaction (CGST + SGST). 2. Non-Obstante Override — India placed Article 246A above the traditional three-list system (Articles 246 and 254) to avoid jurisdictional disputes that plagued the pre-GST indirect tax regime. 3. GST Council as Constitutional Body — Article 279A creates a constitutionally mandated cooperative body (GST Council) to harmonize rates and policies — no foreign GST model has an equivalent constitutional-level coordination mechanism. WHY FRAMERS FELT THIS WAS NEEDED: India's fragmented indirect tax system (Central Excise, Service Tax, VAT, Entry Tax, Octroi, etc.) created cascading taxes, inter-State barriers, and economic inefficiency — a constitutional restructuring was essential to create 'One Nation, One Tax.'
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT DEBATED IN THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. Article 246A was NOT part of the original Constitution adopted on 26 November 1949. It was inserted by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, with effect from 16 September 2016. Therefore, there are NO Constituent Assembly Debate (CAD) records for this Article. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE HISTORY (in lieu of CAD): 1. The 115th Constitution Amendment Bill (2011, UPA Government) — First attempt to introduce GST; referred to Standing Committee chaired by Yashwant Sinha (BJP); lapsed with 15th Lok Sabha. 2. The 122nd Constitution Amendment Bill (2014, NDA Government) — Reintroduced by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley; passed by Lok Sabha in May 2015; referred to Select Committee of Rajya Sabha chaired by Bhupender Yadav. 3. The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 — Passed by Rajya Sabha on 3 August 2016; passed by Lok Sabha on 8 August 2016; received Presidential assent on 8 September 2016; notified w.e.f. 16 September 2016. KEY PARLIAMENTARY QUOTE: Finance Minister Arun Jaitley (Rajya Sabha, 2016): Described GST as creating 'one tax, one market, one nation' — a structural reform to unify India's fragmented indirect tax system.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. (2021) — SC held Article 246A defines both the source of power and field of legislation for GST, creating 'simultaneous power' distinct from concurrent power under the Seventh Schedule. 2. Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022) — SC held GST Council recommendations under Article 279A are NOT binding on Union or States; Article 246A confers co-equal legislative power, and 'recommendation' has only persuasive value. 3. State of Telangana v. M/s Tirumala Constructions (2023) — SC held States lost legislative competence to amend VAT Acts after GST came into effect on 01.07.2017; Article 246A embodies principle of simultaneous levy, distinct from concurrence. 4. Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025) — SC upheld Sections 69 and 70 of CGST Act; held Article 246A is a comprehensive provision — power to levy GST includes ancillary power to enact criminal anti-evasion provisions under doctrine of pith and substance. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None recorded — all four landmark judgments above were unanimous decisions. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Gautam Bhatia (Constitutional Law scholar) — Argued that the Mohit Minerals judgment correctly upheld Article 246A's equal grant of power to Parliament and State legislatures, protecting the Constitution's basic federal structure. 2. H.M. Seervai (cited by SC in Mohit Minerals) — His treatise 'Constitutional Law of India' was relied upon by the Supreme Court to analyze the nature of simultaneous legislative power under Article 246A.