For this, the Council needs an ambitious win-win agenda. While GST was promoted on the slogan of "One nation, one tax," with investment invited to a unified market forged by it for business taxpayers, the overall economic promise of this reform was far larger. To recap, it was expected to simplify indirect taxation, crush the scope for tax favours, end a tax-on-tax cascade by allowing input tax credits, nudge businesses to claim these by going formal, and enlarge the collection base. 

In its most subtle but enduring impact, by relieving value chains of a tax pile-up at every link, it was meant to usher in lower costs on the back of higher efficiency brought about by greater 'gig' specialization across the economy. All this, more than its uniformity, explains why GST was hailed as a bold move. It was pro-economy, at least on paper, and that's what made its initial hiccups bearable.

Although India's GST subsumed a bundle of local taxes, it was hobbled in its role as 'the great simplifier' by its multiplicity of rate brackets. Granted, the global ideal of a single rate is way too regressive for a country where levies must be borne mostly by the better-off, but still, we should have three slabs at most—with every taxable item slotted in a way that explains itself. 

The bulk of these items should be in a standard bracket at a rate that assures the exchequer revenue sufficiency, with only one slab above it and another one below for exceptional items to be overtaxed or relieved as a policy call. The key is to institute a system whose rationale is so clear, it's hard for hidden interests to distort. 

With our monthly GST collections within sniffing range of ₹2 trillion, although the interim budget for 2024-25 had a relatively modest projection, we have the fiscal space to rid this levy of its complexity and go for simplified stability.

While GST slabs need a reset, we must also widen its coverage to include fuel, liquor and other stuff left out for later consideration. Since states with heavy local levies on these items had feared it would hollow out their coffers, a consensus on this is a challenge. But a case for it can and should be made. 

Petroleum products remain particularly overtaxed, with a high domestic burden depriving users of a global moderation in oil prices caused by America's rise as a producer over the past decade or so. For GST to play a more extensive role in reducing our cost base and making the economy more competitive, fuel should be treated like any other item, not as something easily squeezed for revenue because its demand is somewhat price inelastic. 

To allay the anxiety of states over lost inflows, they could possibly be offered a bigger share of the divisible pool of taxes. Or a GST split that's more than half. A parallel plan to phase out cesses—which states cannot access—could sweeten such a bargain. Of course, a pitfall to avoid would be a pledge of compensation based on dicey assumptions of tax intake. All said, it's time to act. GST hasn't lived up to its potential so far and its guardians must join hands to give it another go.