OCTOBER 15, 2025

GST 2.0 - Buzzwords, Burdens, and Bureaucratic Ballet A Tax Congress Chronicle

By Vijay Kumar

WE didn't just discuss GST 2.0 at our Tax Congress on 6th October - we staged it. It was policy architects, digital reformers, industry veterans, and advisory minds orbiting a single theme -GST 2.0 not just a headline.

The session was moderated by Shri Jai Kumar of Swamy Associates, who steered it with wit, warmth, and a firm preference for standing. In the chair was Shri Shashank Priya, Member GST, CBIC, and the panellists were Shri M.K. Sinha, CEO of GST Network; Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, tax head of Luxury Automotive MNC; and Shri Rajat Chhabra, tax strategist. Each brought a distinct lens to the conversation - policy, platform, practice, and perspective.

We had a standing problem. Jai Kumar had a problem. "I can talk only when I am standing ." He declared – and he stood his ground.

I wasn't moderating. I was watching. And thinking of Jest GST.

Anti-Profiteering: The Clause That Lost Its Claws

Jai Kumar opened with a question that has haunted every taxpayer since GST 2.0

How are we going to ensure that GST 2.0 actually reaches the common man? The anti-profiteering provision is still in the statute, but it's teethless. There's no mechanism to enforce it.

There is an anti-profiteering section in GST, which says that when there is a reduction of tax rate or when there is going to be an input tax given to a commodity, it should be ensured that it is passed on to the next stage or to the end customer. But few years back, that section has been numbed and today it is not operational.

He asked rather emotionally:

What if I, being a business, increase the price to accommodate this tax rate, to maintain the same MRP, there is no mandate that the MRP has to be tinkered, it has to be reduced, nothing has come in, there is no law about it. With that being the situation, how sir, we are going to enforce or ensure that this 2.0 is going to enrich or going to reach the common man?

Shri Shashank Priya, Member GST, CBIC, responded with policy poise:

We were always a little bit hesitant about having a mechanism which would kind of disrupt the market forces. It was never meant to be a permanent law… We are maintaining some kind of a background information base… If a more formal response is needed at a later stage, that also we would then look at.

We have put in place certain mechanisms. We are getting price data.

If we start anti-profiteering provision, there will be lot of disputes. And these disputes take their own time to settle down. It creates uncertainties.

Already there is a lot of positivity and a lot of boom in the motor car segment. FMCG, there again, it has helped. A lot of consumers are happy.

We trust the ecosystem. Unless it misbehaves. Then we trust it harder.

Jai Kumar, ever the satirical realist, nodded:

We're not in a monopoly market. We're in an oligopoly market where market corrections will happen automatically. So, there is no need of an enforcement on anti-profiteering - which may only lead to a host of litigations.

Jest Finding: Anti-profiteering is now a spiritual clause. It exists. It inspires. It does not bite.

Compensation Cess: Rs. 2,500 Crore Ghost Credit

Next came the ghost of Rs. 2,500 crore - stranded compensation cess in the auto sector.

Jai Kumar asked:

Isn't this dead credit unjust? It's been duly paid to the government. Now it's being taken away. Isn't that against the basic spirit of GST 2.0?

The CBIC Member offered a philosophical pivot:

Why should we not take it as a contribution of the industry towards GST 2.0? Why don't they absorb this cost and not pass it on to the consumer?

He explained:

Compensation cess was always meant to be, at some point of time be lapsing, so industry would have had already a road map to see how compensation cess will get used going forward. Only thing is it has been a little fast track - now there are two options for the government, one would have been that we refund it or allow it as credit, but we have to also be mindful that government has already given up so much of its revenue, so again for the central government to take this additional burden, it would be hard on the government. So, obviously it is all a matter of how much of revenue hit we are willing to take. One has to also balance the government's concerns for the revenue, that is number one, and number two I must say, and which I have said in earlier forums also, we have always been partners - industry and government, both of us contribute towards the welfare of the society, so why should we not take it as a contribution of the industry towards GST 2.0, why don't they absorb this cost and not pass it on to the consumer, so that is the spirit that I would like to urge the concerned industries to adopt.

When in doubt, call it a patriotic donation. Or a fiscal sacrifice. Or just… a Rs. 2500 crore write-off.

Industry representative Shri Sanjeev Agarwal was diplomatic but firm:

Yes, this becomes a cost. If it is not absorbed or refunded, dealers will be forced to give effect of it in pricing.

Does GST 2.0 giveth with one hand and taketh with the other? The auto industry must now choose between absorbing the cost or passing it on - with a smile.

IMS: The Return of the Return and the Redemption of Reconciliation

If GST 2.0 is the reboot, then IMS is the patch update. The Invoice Matching System promises to restore the original vision of GSTR 1, 2, and 3 - a digital utopia where invoices handshake, credits flow, and mismatches vanish like budget surpluses.

Shri M.K. Sinha, CEO of GSTN, took the stage with the composure of a monk and the charisma of a cricketer. Jai Kumar introduced him with flair:

You've earned a new name - the Rahul Dravid of GSTN. Your composure, your coaching, and yes, your handsomeness.

If GSTN had a batting order, Sinha would open with a spreadsheet and close with a reconciliation report.

Jai Kumar asked the question every tax professional has whispered into their pillow:

Are we finally moving back toward GSTR 1, 2, and 3 - the original roadmap? Or should we wait for GST 3.0 to see GSTR 3?

Sinha clarified:

GSTR 1, 2, and 3 do not sit in law anymore… IMS will come in law. We are allowing industry to get used to the idea.

He explained the evolution:

- GSTR 3B was a compromise - a summary design to launch GST.

- GSTR 1A will allow corrections before filing 3B.

- IMS will digitize B2B (and eventually B2C) transactions.

- The goal: eliminate mismatch notices and restore sanity.

- The end state is all transactions - B2B and B2C - digitized. IMS will remove most of the notices on the ITC side.

We're not reversing. We're rebooting. Slowly. Elegantly. Like a well-coded API.

GSTR 3B: The Menace That Lingers

Jai Kumar, ever the voice of the beleaguered taxpayer, raised a critical concern – Section 16 says I can avail credit only if my supplier has paid the tax - and with proper currency.

But how do I go into his kitchen and check his spices?

A question that every taxpayer has asked - and every supplier has dodged.

Sinha responded with a roadmap:

Once GSTR 1A comes into place, all invoices corrected by 1A will be in 3B. No further amendment in 3B will be needed… The visibility you want will become effective the day government decides to not allow amendment of 3B and makes 1A mandatory.

We're inching toward a future where your credit isn't denied because your supplier filed with the wrong flavour of rupee. That future is not here yet. But it's on the roadmap. Somewhere between "voluntary" and "mandatory."

Tribunals, Time Machines, and the Amnesty That Wasn't

If GST 2.0 is the reboot and IMS is the patch, then GSTAT - the long-awaited tribunal - is the loading screen. It promises justice, resolution, and closure. It also promises to take its time.

GSTAT: Four Lakh Appeals and a Glacier in Robes

Jai Kumar, with the precision of a litigator and the flair of a playwright, laid out the numbers:

Four lakh pending cases. A 10% pre-deposit. And no clarity on state members or infrastructure. At this rate, it'll take 15 years to reach currency.

He quoted a presidential note. He did the math. He invoked my own Jest GST column - a rare moment of tax déjà vu.

It's a relationship between a fish and a frog - aquatic, awkward, and entirely amphibious.

The tribunal is coming. Slowly. Like a glacier with a law degree.

The Amnesty Scheme: The Whisper That Everyone Heard

While not directly debated, the amnesty scheme, like closing all those pending 4 lakh cases with a small payment, hovered over the session like a circular waiting to be issued. Everyone knew it. No one named it.

If GST 2.0 is the reform, amnesty is the reset. A quiet promise of closure for legacy disputes. Expect it to arrive unannounced, like a late-night notification from CBIC.

Final Curtain: Reform or Performance?

As the session drew to a close, one thing became clear: GST 2.0 is not just a policy shift. It's a performance.

- The bureaucrats played their parts with poise and precision.

- The industry responded with cautious optimism and polite concern.

- The moderator delivered a masterclass in satire, sincerity, and standing ovations.

- And the common man ? He's still waiting. But now, at least, he has a front-row seat.

Epilogue: The Jest GST Manifesto

- Anti-profiteering is now a parable.

- Compensation cess is a fiscal ghost story - paid, parked, and politely forgotten.

- IMS - The handshake that might finally hold

- GSTR 3B - A summary return with a summary judgment.

- GSTAT - Justice delayed is justice digitized.

- Amnesty is the whisper we hope becomes a headline.

We are grateful to Shri Shashank Priya and Shri M.K. Sinha - two pillars of India's GST architecture.

Shri Shashank Priya brought clarity, candour, and a policymaker's pragmatism to the discussion, navigating complexity with calm precision, while Shri M.K. Sinha delivered a composed innings of digital reform - steady, strategic, and quietly game-changing.

Their presence didn't just elevate the session; it reminded us that when intellect leads and intent aligns, even tax can inspire applause.