"Having rationalised rates, the next frontier of GST reform lies in compliance and dispute resolution." Discuss in light of recent GST Council deliberations.

The GST Council is a constitutional body under Article 279A. At its 56th meeting (September 2025) it cut four slabs to two rates, 5% and 18%, plus a 40% de-merit rate [1]. At its 57th meeting (8 October 2026), it reportedly set rates aside and took up a five-pronged reform of tax administration [3]. This supports the view that compliance and dispute resolution are now GST's main frontier.

Why the focus has shifted

• Rate rationalisation reduced the burden on consumers. Staples and 33 life-saving drugs moved to nil GST [1].
• The States' compensation period is over and collections are steady. This leaves fiscal room for measures that help taxpayers [3].

Compliance: reducing the cost of being honest

• Registration: low-risk applicants get registration automatically within 3 working days [2].
• Refunds: 90% provisional refunds in inverted duty cases, based on system risk checks. This frees working capital for MSMEs [2].
• Exports: an amendment to Section 54(14), CGST Act removes the refund threshold, which helps small courier exporters [2].
• Unfinished agenda: experts want ITC restrictions relaxed, fewer grievances for service providers and faster refunds [3].

Dispute resolution: from coercion to adjudication

• GSTAT: the Council approved operationalising this dedicated appellate tribunal to speed up appeals and reduce litigation [2].
• Arrest powers: in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court upheld arrest powers. However, it required "reasons to believe" based on material, and grounds of arrest given in writing [4]. Whether to curb these powers further is now a policy choice, not a legal requirement.

Limits of process reform

• Slow results: the 56th meeting's process reforms took effect only from November 2025 [2]. Results depend on the GSTN portal, 36 tax administrations and GSTAT staffing.
• Revenue risk: without compensation, States bear the cost of faster refunds and easier ITC on their own. Consensus in the Council will be negotiated [3].
• Deterrence: coercive powers exist to deal with deliberate fraud such as fake invoicing [4]. Any easing must keep that deterrence.

Rate rationalisation was the visible first step. Lasting gains now depend on simpler compliance and fair, quick adjudication. The way forward is to track outcomes such as refund turnaround time, the share of automatic registrations and GSTAT disposal rates. Coercive powers should be kept for proven fraud. Pursued through cooperative federalism, this would make GST the "Good and Simple Tax" it was meant to be.