The Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals (2022) that GST Council recommendations are not binding has significant implications for cooperative federalism in India. Discuss.

Q. The Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals (2022) that GST Council recommendations are not binding has significant implications for cooperative federalism in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The GST Council, created under Article 279A, is India's principal fiscal-federal forum [2]. In Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (19 May 2022), the Supreme Court held its recommendations to be persuasive, not binding on Parliament or State legislatures [1] — a verdict that recasts, rather than dismantles, cooperative federalism.

Ratio of the ruling - Article 246A confers simultaneous taxing power on the Union and the States; neither derives its authority from the Council [3]. - Parliament's decision to drop the proposed Article 279B (a separate dispute body) showed the Council was designed as a recommendatory forum [1]. - The Court described Indian federalism as a "dialogue" among equal constitutional units, not a hierarchy [1].

How it strengthens cooperative federalism - Restores legislative autonomy of States, whose fiscal space narrowed after the five-year compensation guarantee lapsed in June 2022 [4]. - Recasts the Council as a forum of persuasion and bargaining, giving States leverage against the Centre's one-third weighted vote in a three-fourths majority rule [2]. - Encourages competitive federalism, letting States respond to local revenue needs.

Attendant risks - Divergent State notifications could fragment the "one nation, one tax" common market and revive pre-GST tax cascading and litigation. - Reduces predictability for investors, while dispute resolution awaits full operationalisation of the GST Appellate Tribunal. - Smaller, revenue-deficit States still depend on Council consensus, so formal autonomy may not translate into real fiscal capacity.

Practice since 2022 - The Council has continued to work by consensus rather than voting; its 56th meeting carried through the "GST 2.0" rate-rationalisation package [5].

Mohit Minerals thus replaces command with collaboration: the Council's authority now rests on its deliberative legitimacy, not legal compulsion. Strengthening its dispute-resolution mechanism under Article 279A(11), operationalising the GSTAT fully, and institutionalising consensus-building can convert this judicial clarification into a deeper, more genuinely cooperative fiscal federalism.

(~310 words)

Sources: 1. Union of India v. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 19 May 2022 — recommendations persuasive not binding; deletion of Article 279B; federalism as dialogue 2. The GST Council — GST Council, Government of India — Article 279A, composition, three-fourths weighted voting with one-third Centre weightage 3. The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 — CBIC Tax Information Portal — Article 246A concurrent/simultaneous power to levy GST 4. Cost of GST compensation — PRS Legislative Research — five-year, 14% compensation guarantee ending June 2022 and States' revenue dependence 5. 56th GST Council Meeting Press Release — PIB, Ministry of Finance — continued consensus-based rate rationalisation after the ruling