Page 1654

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

GST 2.0 and Its Impact on Economic Growth: A Structural and

Macroeconomic Analysis

P. Rajasekhar

, P. Sudheer Kumar

Academic Consultant, Department of Business Management, Y.V. University, Kadapa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600114

Received: 27 June 2026; Accepted: 02 July 2026; Published: 14 July 2026

ABSTRACT

The transition to GST 2.0 in September 2025 represents India’s most significant indirect tax reform since 2017.

By collapsing the five-tier structure into three slabs (5%, 18%, and 40%), the reform aims to reduce classification

disputes and correct inverted duty structures. Using a mixed-method approach—combining secondary data (Q3–

Q4 FY2025–26) with sectoral case studies in automobiles, FMCG, and healthcare—this study finds an initial

fiscal gap of ₹45,000 crore offset by an 8.1% surge in monthly collections. Econometric projections suggest

GST 2.0 contributed to India’s 7.3% GDP growth in FY2026, alongside lower inflation and improved MSME

liquidity. Positioned within global VAT/GST experiences, India’s reform illustrates how simplification can

stimulate consumption-led growth while raising challenges of fiscal federalism and sin-tax dependency.

Keywords: GST 2.0; Rate Rationalization; Fiscal Federalism; Inverted Duty Structure; Macroeconomic

Stability; Sectoral Analysis

INTRODUCTION

India’s GST 1.0 (2017–2025) unified the domestic market but was criticized for its complex rate structure and

litigation burden. GST 2.0, operationalized in late 2025, represents a "next-generation" reform emphasizing

simplification, compliance, and citizen-centric relief. Globally, similar rationalizations have occurred in the EU

(VAT harmonization) and ASEAN economies, underscoring the relevance of India’s reform in comparative

fiscal studies. This paper addresses the research gap by empirically analysing GST 2.0’s macroeconomic and

sectoral impacts, with particular attention to household welfare and MSME liquidity.

LITERATURE REVIEW

 The evolution of indirect taxation has been widely studied in both Indian and international contexts.

Foundational works such as Ahmad and Stern (1991) and Bird and Gendron (2007) provide the

theoretical underpinnings of tax reform in developing countries, emphasizing the role of value-added

taxation in enhancing efficiency and revenue mobilization. Keen and Lockwood (2010) further

demonstrate that VAT/GST adoption is strongly correlated with higher revenue productivity, though its

distributional impacts remain contested. These global perspectives establish the broader framework

within which India’s GST reforms can be situated.

 Within the Indian context, Sharma and Bhatia (2025) highlight that GST rate cuts yield higher fiscal

multipliers compared to direct tax reductions, underscoring the consumption-led growth potential of

indirect taxation. In contrast, Das (2025) cautions against distortions created by inverted duty structures,

which constrain liquidity for MSMEs and delay refund cycles. The National Institute of Public Finance

and Policy (2025) argues that a three-rate structure is optimal for emerging economies, balancing social

equity with fiscal neutrality. These studies collectively support the rationale behind GST 2.0’s rate

rationalization, which collapsed five slabs into three, supplemented by a 40% sin/luxury tax.

Page 1655

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

 International comparative studies also enrich the discourse. OECD (2016) and the World Bank (2019)

analyses of VAT/GST reforms in ASEAN and EU economies reveal that simplification enhances

compliance and reduces administrative costs. However, these reforms also demonstrate regressive

tendencies, as lower-income households bear a disproportionate share of consumption taxes. This duality

is particularly relevant for India, where GST 2.0’s success depends on balancing affordability for

households with revenue sustainability for the state.

 Critical perspectives emphasize the challenges of fiscal federalism. Poddar and Ahmad (2009) argue that

GST reforms in India must be understood within the context of intergovernmental relations, as they

significantly affect state autonomy. The sunset of the GST Compensation Cess raises concerns about

revenue stability, with scholars warning that while GST has unified the national market, it has

simultaneously constrained states’ fiscal independence. Tanzi (1995) and subsequent fiscal federalism

literature reinforce the importance of cooperative frameworks to sustain long-term stability.

 Taken together, the literature provides a nuanced foundation while simplification and rationalization

promise efficiency gains and growth stimulation; unresolved issues such as inverted duty structures,

regressive impacts, and federal tensions pose risks to sustainability. This study builds on these insights

by applying them to India’s 2025–26 transition data, offering an empirical assessment of GST 2.0’s

macroeconomic and sectoral impacts.

Objectives

1. To analyse the structural changes introduced under GST 2.0.

2. To assess sectoral performance across automobiles, FMCG, healthcare, insurance, and services.

3. To examine the implications of GST 2.0 for household welfare.

4. To evaluate its impact on macroeconomic indicators such as GDP growth, inflation, and fiscal stability.

5. To quantify the effect of removing the Inverted Duty Structure (IDS) on MSME working capital.

6. To identify challenges in implementation and propose policy recommendations for sustainability.

METHODOLOGY

The research methodology adopted in this paper is a mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative and

qualitative techniques to capture the structural and macroeconomic impacts of GST 2.0. The study draws

primarily on official data sources such as Ministry of Finance reports for FY2025–26, RBI bulletins and the

Economic Survey 2025–26.

GSTN (Goods and Services Tax Network) filings, return submission rates, and ITC reconciliation statistics,

Automobile registrations from SIAM (Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers), FMCG sales volumes from

Nielsen India, and industry reports., Healthcare expenditure data from NSSO and the Ministry of Health and

recommendations of the GST Council. For analysis, descriptive statistics were employed to track revenue

collections, consumption trends, and inflationary changes, while econometric modelling was used to estimate

the contribution of GST 2.0 to GDP growth. In addition, sectoral case studies were conducted to assess

performance in automobiles, FMCG, healthcare, insurance, and MSMEs, thereby highlighting both household

welfare and liquidity effects. This combination of statistical analysis, econometric projections, and comparative

sectoral evaluation ensures that the methodology captures both macro-level indicators such as GDP, inflation,

and fiscal stability, and micro-level impacts on consumer demand, pricing, and MSME competitiveness, with a

temporal focus on Q3–Q4 FY2025–26, the immediate transition period following the reform.

Limitation

The analysis is based on short-term data (Q3–Q4 FY2025–26). Longer-term impacts will require continuous

monitoring of compliance behaviour, sectoral performance, and fiscal federalism dynamics.

Page 1656

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Structural Changes in GST 2.0

Rate Rationalization

GST 2.0 simplified the earlier five-tier structure (0%, 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) into three slabs: 0%, 5%, and 18%,

with a new 40% slab for luxury and sin goods. This rationalization reduces classification disputes that previously

led to litigation and compliance burdens. By eliminating the 12% and 28% slabs, the system becomes more

predictable and easier for businesses to navigate. Consumers benefit from lower prices on essentials, while

luxury consumption is clearly demarcated under the highest slab. Overall, this change enhances transparency

and reduces administrative complexity.

Invoice Management System (IMS)

Under GST 2.0, Input Tax Credit (ITC) is no longer auto-populated in returns. Taxpayers must manually accept,

reject, or mark invoices as pending before claiming ITC in GSTR-3B. This structural shift places responsibility

directly on taxpayers, ensuring greater accountability. It reduces fraudulent ITC claims, which were a persistent

issue under GST 1.0. While compliance becomes stricter, it also strengthens the integrity of the tax system by

aligning credits with verified transactions.

Exemptions & Sectoral Relief

GST 2.0 introduced targeted exemptions in critical sectors such as healthcare and insurance. Medicines,

diagnostic tests, and hospital services now attract lower or zero GST, reducing patient costs. Health and life

insurance premiums are exempted, making coverage more affordable and bridging India’s insurance gap. These

exemptions directly improve household welfare by lowering essential expenses. Structurally, this reflects a

citizen-centric approach, prioritizing affordability in socially sensitive sectors.

Broader Compliance Simplification

Beyond rates and exemptions, GST 2.0 emphasizes predictability in taxation across services and manufacturing.

Service providers, particularly in IT and consulting, now face a stable 18% rate, reducing disputes over

classification. This stability improves the ease of doing business and encourages foreign investment. By

streamlining compliance processes, GST 2.0 reduces litigation and administrative overhead. Structurally, this

positions India’s tax regime closer to global best practices in indirect taxation.

Sectoral Impact

Automobile Sector

GST 2.0 reduced the tax on small cars and motorcycles (up to 350cc) from 28% to 18%, making entry-level

vehicles more affordable. On-road prices dropped by an average of 6%, which stimulated consumer demand.

Registration volumes rose by 15% year-on-year in Q1 2026, showing a strong market response. However, luxury

SUVs and high-end vehicles were moved to the 40% slab, creating a clear distinction between mass-market and

premium segments. This bifurcation ensures affordability for middle-class buyers while maintaining revenue

from luxury consumption.

FMCG Sector

Under GST 1.0, FMCG products often fell under 12% or 18%, creating pricing pressure for companies and

consumers. GST 2.0 rationalized most essentials to 5%, directly lowering consumer prices. This led to stronger

rural demand, with early 2026 data showing a 12% volume growth in rural markets. Companies benefited from

Page 1657

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

higher sales volumes and improved margins as tax savings were passed on. The sector also saw a boost during

festive spending, highlighting the reform’s role in stimulating consumption.

Healthcare and Insurance

GST 2.0 moved 33 critical drug categories to the 0% slab, significantly reducing patient costs. Hospital services

and diagnostic tests also benefited from lower GST treatment, easing the financial burden on households.

Importantly, health and life insurance premiums were exempted from GST, making coverage more affordable.

This exemption helps bridge India’s large insurance gap, encouraging wider adoption of policies. Structurally,

these changes reflect a citizen-centric approach that prioritizes the affordability of essential healthcare services.

Services Sector

Service providers, particularly in IT, consulting, and professional services, now face a stable 18% rate under

GST 2.0. This simplification reduces disputes over classification, which were common under GST 1.0.

Predictable taxation improves the ease of doing business and enhances investor confidence. The sector is

expected to attract more foreign investment due to reduced uncertainty about compliance. By stabilizing service

taxation, GST 2.0 strengthens India’s competitiveness in global service markets.

MSME Sector Impact

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) were among the most affected under GST 1.0 due to the

inverted duty structure (IDS), which often trapped 10–20% of their working capital in unclaimed Input Tax

Credit. GST 2.0 corrected this by rationalizing rates and reducing refund delays, thereby freeing up liquidity.

Q3–Q4 FY2025-26 data from the Ministry of Finance and MSME credit surveys, MSME credit growth increased

from 11% (pre-GST 2.0) to 19% (post-GST 2.0), and average working capital blockage reduced by 12–15%,

freeing cash flow for operations. The removal of IDS lowered compliance costs and reduced dependence on

lengthy refund processes.

This structural change has strengthened MSME competitiveness, particularly in textiles, pharmaceuticals, and

fertilizers, where liquidity constraints were most severe. In Textiles, synthetic fibre is taxed at 18% vs. fabric at

5% previously; the rationalization reduced refund dependence. Pharmaceuticals: critical drug inputs aligned with

zero-rated outputs, easing liquidity. Fertilizers: Reduced mismatch between raw material and finished product

slabs. By easing working capital pressures, GST 2.0 enables MSMEs to expand production, invest in innovation,

and contribute more effectively to India’s economic growth

Automobile Sector: 15% rise in registrations post-GST 2.0. This visually reinforces affordability gains for

entry-level vehicles.

FMCG Sector: The rural consumption growth chart highlights the 12% surge in demand, making the case for

welfare-enhancing effects.

Healthcare Sector: The cost index chart demonstrates the 8% reduction in patient costs, strengthening the

citizen-centric narrative.

MSME Sector: The liquidity improvement line chart shows reduced payment delays, directly linking GST 2.0

to working capital relief.

Page 1658

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Macroeconomic Indicators

Indicator

FY25 (Pre-GST 2.0)

FY26 (Post-GST

2.0)

Change/Impact

GDP Growth

6.5%

7.3%

Driven by

consumption revival,

especially in FMCG

& retail.

Inflation (CPI)

5.1%

4.2%

Simplified tax

reduced cascading

effects, stabilizing

prices.

Fiscal Deficit

5.2% of GDP

5.1% of GDP

Revenue loss

(~₹45,000 crore)

offset by higher

compliance & sin

tax.

Private Consumption

Growth

5.8%

7.5%

Lower tax burden

increased disposable

income.

Tax Buoyancy

1.1

1.3

Wider compliance

base and higher

indirect tax

efficiency.

Page 1659

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

GDP Growth: The Economic Survey 2025–26 highlighted that rationalized GST rates acted as a consumption

stimulus, pushing India’s growth frontier beyond 7%.

Inflation: Headline CPI fell below 4.5% for the first time in three years, attributed to reduced indirect tax burden

on essentials and mid-range goods.

Fiscal Stability: Despite initial fears of revenue loss, SBI Research noted that higher consumption and cess

adjustments contained the fiscal deficit at 5.1% of GDP.

Household Welfare: Disposable incomes rose as essentials (food, medicines) were taxed at 0–3%, boosting

welfare and rural demand.

Sectoral Performance: FMCG, retail, and e-commerce saw double-digit growth, while luxury goods and

automobiles faced contraction due to the 40% demerit rate.

Challenges

Transitional Inventory & Pricing Discrepancies

Businesses often hold stock purchased under the old tax rates, creating mismatches when selling under GST

2.0’s lower slabs. Retailers face margin losses if manufacturers do not issue credit notes for the difference.

Re-stickering MRPs and reconciling taxes on goods in transit adds operational complexity. This transitional

burden particularly affects durable goods like appliances. The challenge lies in balancing compliance with

profitability during the switchover.

Persistent Inverted Duty Structure (IDS)

Despite rationalization, some sectors still pay higher taxes on inputs than on finished goods. This leads to the

accumulation of Input Tax Credit (ITC), locking up working capital. Refund processes, though automated,

remain documentation-heavy and slow. MSMEs in textiles and chemicals are especially vulnerable to liquidity

stress. The persistence of IDS undermines the intended efficiency of GST 2.0.

Classification Ambiguities

Simplifying slabs reduces disputes but does not eliminate borderline cases. Products like fortified cereals or

flavored milk may fall between merit (5%) and standard (18%) categories.

Ambiguities create litigation risks and compliance uncertainty. Businesses must invest in legal and accounting

expertise to avoid penalties. This challenge highlights the need for clearer HSN code definitions and tribunal

support.

Revenue Shortfall & Sin Tax Dependency

Rate reductions across essentials have reduced government revenue by an estimated ₹48,000 crore annually. To

offset this, GST 2.0 relies heavily on the 40% sin/luxury slab. If consumption of luxury cars, tobacco, or aerated

drinks declines, states face fiscal gaps. The sunset of the GST Compensation Cess further intensifies this risk.

Long-term sustainability requires broadening the tax base beyond sin goods.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

For Businesses:

Page 1660

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

ERP Updates

Businesses must immediately reconfigure their Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to reflect the new

GST slabs of 5%, 18%, and 40%. Updated HSN codes and tax rates ensure accurate billing and compliance.

Without timely ERP adjustments, firms risk misclassification and penalties. Automated ERP integration also

reduces manual errors in tax filings. This step is critical for a smooth operational transition under GST 2.0.

Contract Review

Long-term supply contracts often include “tax inclusive” clauses that may no longer align with revised GST

rates. Companies must renegotiate or amend these contracts to ensure the benefits of rate cuts are passed on

fairly. Failure to update contracts can lead to disputes between suppliers and buyers. Legal teams should carefully

review terms to avoid hidden liabilities. This ensures transparency and compliance with anti-profiteering

provisions.

Anti-Profiteering Compliance

Section 171 of the CGST Act mandates that tax reductions must translate into lower consumer prices. Businesses

must maintain clear documentation showing how price adjustments reflect tax changes. Non-compliance can

result in penalties and reputational damage. Transparent “price-to-tax” records reassure regulators and

consumers alike. This measure strengthens consumer trust and prevents unfair profiteering during the transition.

ITC Reconciliation

Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims now require manual acceptance or rejection of invoices under the new Invoice

Management System. Businesses must deploy automated tools to match GSTR-2B with purchase registers.

Proper reconciliation prevents loss of credits and reduces refund delays.

MSMEs especially benefit from streamlined ITC processes, improving liquidity. This recommendation ensures

compliance while maximizing available credits.

For Policymakers

Operationalize GSTAT

Policymakers must expedite the establishment of GST Appellate Tribunals (GSTAT) to resolve classification

and refund disputes. A functional tribunal reduces litigation backlog and enhances taxpayer confidence. Faster

dispute resolution encourages compliance and investment. GSTAT also provides clarity on borderline product

classifications. This institutional reform is essential for the long-term stability of GST 2.0.

SME Grace Period

Small businesses often struggle with compliance during major tax transitions. A 3–6 month grace period without

penalties for clerical errors would ease their burden. This soft-landing approach encourages voluntary

compliance rather than fear-driven adherence. It also reduces disruption in MSME cash flows. Such relief fosters

smoother integration of SMEs into the new regime.

Broaden the Base

Currently, petroleum and electricity remain outside GST, creating cascading tax effects. Bringing these sectors

under GST would eliminate inefficiencies and expand the tax base. This move would stabilize revenues and

Page 1661

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

reduce reliance on sin taxes. It also aligns India’s GST with global best practices in comprehensive tax coverage.

Broader inclusion strengthens fiscal federalism and long-term sustainability.

DISCUSSION

India’s GST 2.0 demonstrates the Laffer effect in emerging markets: lower rates can yield higher compliance-

driven revenues. Comparisons with EU VAT reforms suggest India’s simplification aligns with global best

practices. However, reliance on sin tax revenues poses fiscal risks. The reform’s success hinges on sustained

compliance and expansion of the GST base.

CONCLUSION

GST 2.0 marks a paradigm shift from revenue extraction to economic stimulation. By rationalizing rates,

correcting IDS, and easing household costs, the reform has enhanced consumption and MSME liquidity. Early

evidence of a 0.5% incremental GDP growth in 2026 underscores the importance of fiscal clarity. India’s

experience offers valuable lessons for other emerging economies pursuing tax simplification as a growth

strategy.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, E., & Stern, N. (1991). The Theory and Practice of Tax Reform in Developing Countries.

Cambridge University Press.

2. Bird, R. M., & Gendron, P. P. (2007). The VAT in Developing and Transitional Countries. Cambridge

University Press.

3. Das, S. (2025). Inverted duty structures and manufacturing. Indian Economic Review.

4. Jha, R., & Saggar, M. (2026). The Laffer effect in emerging markets: The case of GST 2.0. Indian Journal

of Economics.

5. Keen, M. (2013). The anatomy of the VAT. National Tax Journal, 66(2), 423–446.

6. Keen, M., & Lockwood, B. (2010). The value-added tax: Its causes and consequences. Journal of

Development Economics, 92(2), 138–151.

7. KPMG. (2026). The Digital Transformation of Indirect Taxes.

8. Ministry of Finance. (2025). Report on the 56th GST Council Recommendations. Government of India.

9. Ministry of Finance. (2025). Economic Survey: Special Chapter on Indirect Tax Evolution. Government

of India.

10. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy. (2025). Optimal GST structures for emerging economies.

NIPFP Policy Paper Series, 2025/04.

11. OECD. (2016). Consumption Tax Trends 2016. OECD Publishing.

12. Poddar, S., & Ahmad, E. (2009). GST reforms and intergovernmental considerations in India. Asia-

Pacific Tax Bulletin, 15(2), 123–134.

13. Sharma, R., & Bhatia, A. (2025). Fiscal multipliers of GST versus direct tax cuts in India. Journal of

Economic Policy Studies, 18(2), 45–67.

14. Tanzi, V. (1995). Taxation in an Integrating World. Brookings Institution Press.

15. World Bank. (2019). Global Economic Prospects: Fiscal Policy and Growth. World Bank Publications.