Tuesday, 16 September 2025

A Layperson's Look at India's Complicated Tax Rules on Share Buybacks 16Sep2025

A Layperson's Look at India's Complicated Tax Rules on Share Buybacks 16Sep2025



 
 

 
 
 
(The views expressed here are for information purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation or investment advice. While the author is a CFA Charterholder with nearly 25 years of experience in financial markets, this content is intended to share general insights and does not constitute financial guidance. Please consult your financial adviser before taking any investment decision. Safe to assume the author has a vested interest in stocks / investments discussed if any.)
 
 
Note to Readers: I’m not a tax expert—just a normal person trying to understand the recent changes in how equity buybacks are taxed in India. This post is just for information on the topic, and not meant to be financial or legal advice.
 
The following is an answer from Perplexity Pro as on 16Sep2025:
 
Some sources quoted by Perplexity Pro in this regard:
 
Section 115QA - Taxmann
Infosys Buyback - Moneycontrol 
Infosys Buyback - Times of India 
Buyback tax reforms 
 
 
 
What are the new taxation rules on buy back of equity shares of listed companies in India?

Answer from Perplexity Pro as on 16Sep2025:

The taxation rules for buyback of equity shares by listed companies in India changed significantly from October 1, 2024. 

Rules Before October 1, 2024:

Buyback Tax paid by the company: When a listed company bought back its own shares, it paid an additional income tax called the Buy-Back Distribution Tax (BDT), under Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act. 
 
The effective rate was 23.296% (20% plus surcharge and cess) on the difference between the buyback price and the issue price of shares and shareholders had no tax liability on the income received from buyback


Rules From October 1, 2024 Onwards

Taxable in shareholder’s hands: From October 1, 2024 onwards, the company is no longer liable to pay any buyback tax.  
 
Instead, the entire buyback amount received by the shareholder is treated as “deemed dividend” and taxed as "Income from Other Sources" at the individual's income tax slab rate.

TDS deducted by company: The company deducts TDS at 10% for resident shareholders and 20% for non-residents (subject to double taxation treaty relief) on the entire buyback consideration (buyback proceeds) received from the listed company.

Cost base treatment: The cost of acquisition (purchase price) of the shares cannot be deducted 
from buyback proceeds. But the cost of acquisition is allowed as a capital loss, which can be set off against other capital gains and carried forward up to eight years. 

Higher tax burden possible: Since the full buyback consideration is taxed as income (without cost of acquisition deduction), investors in higher slabs (e.g., 30%) may pay more tax than previously.

Key Points:
 
Prior to Oct2024: Tax (~23%) paid by company; shareholders exempt.

From Oct 2024 onwards: Taxable as income in the hands of shareholders; TDS applies; cost of acquisition is capital loss for set-off.

Advice: The change makes share buybacks less tax-efficient in India, especially for investors in higher tax brackets.

Example Calculation (Post-October 2024):

Suppose shares bought at Rs 1,000 are bought back at Rs 1,800:

Entire Rs 1,800 taxable as “Income from Other Sources” for the shareholder.

TDS 10% (residents) deducted; remainder paid to shareholder.

Rs 1,000 purchase cost is not deductible here but is a capital loss, which can be set off against capital gains in the current financial year or future capital gains.

This is the current framework for taxation on buyback of equity shares of listed companies in India as of 16Sep2025.

 
 - - -
 
P.S.: As per Sridhar Sivaram of Enam Holdings Ltd, "no grandfathering of cost of acquisition.. so any purchase before 31/1/2018 .. buyback will result in more tax !!"
 

 
 
----------------
 
References: 
 
Above maze image courtesy: Google Gemini 
 
Tweet thread 02Oct2024 share buyback tax changes
 
Burden on retail shareholders - tax on share buybacks 
 
Negative impact of Debt Mutual Fund Tax Changes 25Mar2023 -- several changes in dividend tax, previous changes in buyback tax, quixotic changes by PM Modi govt and others
 
Change in behaviour by corporates after 01Oct2024 due to new changes 
 
Tweet 10Sep2025 on Infosys Buyback 
 
Tweet 16Sep2025 - complicated buyback tax system - Sridhar Sivaram of Enam Holdings Ltd
 
Two screenshots from above tweet >
 
 


 
----------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Equity Raise After 12 Years: Should Shareholders of Asahi India Glass Be Worried? 16Sep2025

Equity Raise After 12 Years: Should Shareholders of Asahi India Glass Be Worried? 16Sep2025



 
 

 
 
 
(The views expressed here are for information purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation or investment advice. While the author is a CFA Charterholder with nearly 25 years of experience in financial markets, this content is intended to share general insights and does not constitute financial guidance. Please consult your financial adviser before taking any investment decision. Safe to assume the author has a vested interest in stocks / investments discussed if any.)
 


1. When a Company Raises Equity After 12 Years — What It Means for Investors

It’s not every day that a company decides to raise equity capital — and when it does after a gap of 12 years, it’s worth paying attention.

Let’s talk about Asahi India Glass Ltd, a company that's been pretty disciplined in how it funds its growth. The last time they raised money from equity shareholders was way back in Jul2013, through a rights issue.
 
Now, after a solid 12-year gap, they’re back, looking to raise Rs 1,000 crore via a Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP) at an average price of Rs 845 per share.

Now, for context: Quality companies typically don’t go around issuing new shares often. That’s usually a good sign for long-term shareholders. Most of the time, such companies meet their capital expenditure (capex) needs through internal accruals and debt — not by diluting equity. 
 
That’s exactly what Asahi India Glass has been doing.
 
Financial discipline has been a defining trait of Asahi India Glass over the years, even though the company went through a rough patch in the late 2000s and early 2010s. 
 
That period saw some financial strain, but since then, the company has consistently shown restraint — particularly in how it manages debt and capex; and avoids unnecessary equity dilution. 

They’ve spent about Rs 2,500 crore on capex over the last three years — expanding capacity, setting up new facilities — all funded through a mix of borrowings and cash generated from operations. 
 
That’s impressive, especially given that they didn’t dilute equity even once in that entire period. 
 
And despite having a relatively high debt-to-equity ratio over the years, they resisted equity dilution all this time. Respect.

But now, they're tapping into the equity market — and there’s a reason behind it. The main purpose of this Rs 1,000 crore QIP is to retire debt (Rs 750 crore of it, to be precise). The rest will go toward general corporate purposes.


2. So What does that mean?

Well, for debt holders — banks and bond investors — this is good news. Paying down debt makes the company financially healthier. The debt burden goes down, the interest expense falls and the company’s credit profile likely improves. 
 
That makes the company a safer bet for lenders. In fact, a lower debt-to-equity ratio usually leads to better credit ratings in the long run.

But what about equity shareholders?

Here’s where it gets nuanced. Equity dilution means existing shareholders will now own a slightly smaller piece of the pie. New shares are being issued, and that can temporarily cap upside in the stock price, especially if earnings don’t grow fast enough to offset the dilution.

That said, in the long run, if the company uses the equity funds to clean up the balance sheet and reduce interest costs, it could lead to improved profitability — and that benefits everyone.
 
The current debt-to-equity ratio was at 0.95 as of March 2025 (down from 1.06 in March 2021), so this move could bring it down even further, signaling a stronger balance sheet going forward.
 
 
3. Business model of Asahi India Glass 
 
The company is a leader in automotive and architectural glass in India. That means they're supplying glass to carmakers and real estate developers — both sectors that have seen healthy growth cycles in recent years. 
 
Asahi India is one of India’s leading makers of glass used in cars and buildings — think windshields, windows and everything in between. 
 
As demand for cars and buildings rises, so does the demand for high-quality glass. 
 
It’s a fairly capital-intensive business, which explains the need for consistent capex. But it also means that once capacity is built and demand is strong, the returns can be quite rewarding.
 
Business-wise, it has three business segments:

1. Automotive glass segment: 75% market share in Indian passenger car segment, 

2. Architectural glass segment (Building and Construction): 27% domestic market share in value added glass, and

3. Consumer glass segment.

But officially and as per AS-108, AIS has two reporting / operating segments, namely, Automotive glass and Float Glass. AS-108 is an Indian Accounting Standard that deals with how Indian companies should report their different business segments in financial statements.
 
 
Two-third of the sales come from automotive segment, whereas 30 per cent is contribution from float glass. Automotive glass sales are robust in the past four years, but float glass sales have declined in the pat two years. 
 
The profitability of the gloat glass is much stronger compared to the automotive glass, as the pricing power in the latter segment rests with the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Maruti Suzuki India, Mahindra & Mahindra, Hyundai India, Tata Motors and Toyota -- who are long-standing customers of Asahi India Glass in the automotive glass segment.  
 
 
4. Key financial metrics

Here’s how the company’s Debt-to-Equity ratio has moved in recent years (lower is better):

0.95  Mar2025
0.80  Mar2024
0.65  Mar2023
0.68  Mar2022
1.06   Mar2021

As you can see, debt levels have been gradually climbing again over the last two years. By raising equity now and paying off Rs 750 crore of that debt, Asahi can reduce its financial leverage. 
 
That has multiple benefits: lower interest costs, a stronger balance sheet and potentially better credit ratings. All of this makes the company more resilient — especially important in cyclical industries like automotive and construction.

It helps to look at whether the company has been generating enough cash and profit to justify investor confidence.

Operating Cash Flow (Rs crore):

720  FY 2024-25
653  FY 2023-24
402  FY 2022-23
586  FY 2021-22
516  FY 2020-21
293  FY 2019-20

Net Profit (Rs crore):

367  FY 2024-25
325  FY 2023-24
362  FY 2022-23
343  FY 2021-22
131  FY 2020-21
151  FY 2019-20

The trend here is positive. Operating cash flows are strong and steadily rising, while net profit has remained healthy. This tells us the company is not raising equity because it's desperate — it’s doing so from a position of strength to shore up its long-term financials.

What’s the Catch?

Yes, equity dilution does mean your percentage ownership shrinks. With the current market price at around Rs 880 and the QIP price at Rs 845, some might worry about short-term pressure on the stock. 
 
Of course, no move is risk-free. Equity dilution might cap short-term stock upside. The average QIP price (floor price) of Rs 845 per share means some institutional investors are coming in slightly below market — not always great for sentiment. 
 
But long-term investors should focus on the bigger picture: a healthier balance sheet and lower financing costs could translate to higher profits in the years ahead.

Operating cash flow has grown solidly, hitting an all-time high in FY 2024-25. Net profits, too, have remained fairly steady — even with ups and downs in economic conditions. These figures show that the company is not just spending for the sake of expansion — it’s backing it with real cash generation.
 
How Capital-Intensive Nature Affects Net Profit versus OCF:

Asahi India Glass operates in a capital-intensive industry, meaning it needs to invest heavily in plant, machinery and equipment to manufacture glass. These assets are expensive and have long useful lives — often 10–20 years or more.


The capital-intensive nature of Asahi’s business leads to high depreciation expenses, which depress net profit, but since depreciation is non-cash, operating cash flow (OCF) remains strong — explaining the consistent gap between the two. 
 
Data showing key financial metrics on debt and cash flows:
 
Click on the image to view better > 
 

 
5. A Quick Word on Valuation 

Stock PE or price-earnings ratio is 65.8, price to book value is 8.0 and price to sales (or market cap to sales) ratio is 4.6 -- the current valuation ratios of Asahi are high compared to historical averages. 

Operating profit margin (OPM) has been in the range of 17-24 per cent in the past five years; and dividend payout is in the range of 13-18 per cent range in the same period. 

Promoter holding is 54 per cent of the total and this is likely to come down once the QIP is completed. Promoter pledge is 3.50 per cent of promoter holding, which is not a concern. 

The promoters are Japanese AGC Inc (formerly Asahi Glass Company), Labroo family and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Foreign portfolio investors (FPI) and domestic institutional investors (DII) share are low at 3.7  and 1.7 per cent respectively, with the public holding at 40 per cent.  
 
The current market price is around Rs 880, and the market cap stands at roughly Rs 21,400 crore. Not a small fish anymore.

So, while equity dilution may raise some eyebrows, in this case, it looks like a strategic move to reduce debt and position the company for long-term stability.

And for those of us who’ve been holding the stock for a while — yes, vested interest alert — it’s worth watching how this plays out.
 

6. Risks to Keep in Mind

While Asahi India Glass has shown solid financial discipline and steady performance, no company is without its risks. Here are a few areas investors should keep an eye on:

1. Industry cyclicality — especially auto:

A large part of Asahi’s business is tied to the automobile sector, which is notoriously cyclical. When auto sales are booming, so are orders for automotive glass. Latest GST rate cuts are expected to provide a tailwind for auto sales going forward, especially during the upcoming festival season. 

2. Construction and real estate trends:

On the architectural side of the business, demand is closely linked to the health of the real estate and infrastructure sectors. Slowdowns in construction activity, changes in real estate regulations or delays in commercial projects can all reduce demand for architectural glass.

3. Foreign exchange risk:

Asahi India Glass imports a good chunk of its raw materials, especially for its high-quality architectural and automotive glass. Since these inputs are often priced in foreign currencies (like USD or Euro), any sharp movement in exchange rates can impact costs. 
 
During 2024-25, foreign exchange outflow amounted to Rs 1,536 crore (previous year Rs 1,701 crore) and foreign exchange earnings totaled Rs 59 crore (previous year Rs 44 crore).

4. Energy and fuel cost volatility:

Glass manufacturing is energy-intensive. Fluctuations in gas and power prices directly affect margins. 

5. Competition and pricing pressure:

Although Asahi is a market leader, it still faces competition from both domestic and global players. This could lead to pricing pressure, especially in the commoditised parts of its product portfolio. 

Saint Gobain India is a key competitor for Asahi.

6. Capex execution risk:

While their recent capex plan has been largely funded via internal accruals and debt, executing large projects always carries implementation risk — delays, cost overruns, or slower-than-expected ramp-up in production could impact returns.

7. Government policy risk: 

The Government of India has imposed anti-dumping duties on various glass imports, from countries like, China, Vietnam and Malaysia, to protect domestic manufacturers (trade protectionism), but investors should remain cautious as future policy changes could impact industry dynamics.
 
Finally, Asahi India Glass is de-risking the business, with its latest capital raise through QIP. And if that means lower interest costs, a cleaner balance sheet and better credit standing, the short-term dilution may well be worth it.

Disclaimer
: Vested interest in the stock for several years. The analysis is just for educational purpose and should not be construed as financial advice. Prospective investors should consult their own financial adviser before considering any investment.
 
 
- - -
 
 
 
 
------------------------
 
References:
 
1. Above picture courtesy: AIS Annual Report 2024-25
 
2. Blog dated 26Nov2009 Asahi India Glass (same reader-friendly Scribd document)
 
 
 
5. AIS Preliminary Placement Document for QIP 15Sep2025 
 
6. AIS Annual Report 2013-14:
 
Jul2013 Rights issue screenshot >
 

 
  
 
 

Saturday, 13 September 2025

Why We Forget Failed Tech — and Only Celebrate the Winners? 13Sep2025

Why We Forget Failed Tech — and Only Celebrate the Winners? 13Sep2025



 
 
 

 
"By the time today’s babies graduate from college, the treatments for most diseases will have been revolutionized by this project.

~ Francis Collins, director of Human Genome Project or HGP (1999)
 
 
 
 
In 2000, President Bill Clinton, alongside UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, announced the completion of the Human Genome Project with lot of pomp and celebration.

Clinton described it as a historic milestone, calling it a moment where “we are learning the language in which God created life.” He emphasised the profound potential of genetic science to revolutionise how we prevent, diagnose and treat disease.
 
The Human Genome Project was hailed as the dawn of a new era in medicine. Yet, two decades later, its promises have been only partially realised.

People tend to remember and celebrate the success stories, while forgetting or ignoring the many failed attempts that once had just as much (or more) hype.
 
We celebrate the internet in the 1990s, but forget the hundreds of ventures that failed spectacularly in the 1990s and early 2000s. We glorify the success of AWS (launched in 2006) in cloud computing but can't recall the early failures, like Cisco Intercloud and Sun Microsystems' "The Internet is the Computer."
 

Survivorship Bias 
 
This is survivorship bias at work: we focus on the winners, ignoring the many failures that were once just as hyped, visionary and well-funded. In technology, we tend to assume progress is inevitable. 

Survivorship bias is the tendency to concentrate on people, ideas, stocks or things that made it past a selection process — while ignoring those that didn’t.
 
For every Nvidia or Amazon that made investors rich, there are dozens of hyped-up companies that burned out, faded away or never delivered. 
 
For every breakout success in technology, there are dozens of ambitious ideas that never made it.
 
In tech, it means we focus on success stories like Google, iPhone or Tesla, and forget all the Theranoses, Zunes and Segways that never made it.
 
 
Story continues below 

----------------------
 
Read more:
 
Loss of First-mover Advantage 
 
----------------------

 
Disappointing breakthroughs
 
History is full of examples of technologies that were announced with great fanfare and predicted to revolutionise the world, but ultimately fell short of expectations or failed to achieve widespread adoption. 

The reasons for these failures are varied, often a combination of technological limitations, market miscalculations, high costs or a lack of public acceptance.

Here are some technologies that once carried massive hype — some even labeled as world-changing — but ultimately failed, stalled, or quietly disappeared. Not because they weren’t clever, but because hype isn’t the same as lasting impact.
 
Each of these failures reminds us that success in tech isn’t just about innovation — it’s about timing, usability, execution, trust and sometimes, plain luck. When we only study the successes, we risk learning the wrong lessons.

For entrepreneurs: “Study failures just as hard as successes — the graveyard of tech is full of good ideas poorly timed.”

For investors: “Don’t confuse a strong demo with a sustainable business model.”

For general readers: “Just because something is trending doesn’t mean it will last.”
 
The next time you hear that a new technology is going to change the world, pause and ask: Is this another iPhone — or another Google Glass? The difference is easy to see in hindsight. But survivorship bias means we rarely see the failures when we're caught up in the mania.
 
Iridium is a classic and fascinating case of a technological marvel that failed commercially at first, despite being hyped as revolutionary.

Google Loon is another example of a heavily hyped technology that ultimately failed to deliver on its promises. Project Loon aimed to provide global internet access using high-altitude balloons floating in the stratosphere.

Due to technical complications, high costs and commercial non-viability, Loon was shut down by Alphabet Inc (parent of Google) in 2021. Elon Musk's Starlink emerged as a viable alternative with the concept of low-earth orbit satellites.  
 
There are many more such instances of technologies that have failed to live up to expectations.  

List of Overhyped or Failed Technologies: Iridium, Hyperloop, Google Loon, Facebook Aquila, Human Genome Project, Theranos, Segway, Microsoft Zune, Flying cars, Google Glass, 23andMe and Blockchain.


 
 
Work in Progress
 
Unlike failed tech, some ideas - like 3D printing and the Metaverse - survive in a grey area: overhyped at first, but still evolving quietly in the background, away from the headlines.

Failure isn’t the end — in fact, it’s often part of the innovation cycle. Many of the technologies we label as failures today planted seeds that helped future breakthroughs succeed.
 
A failed technology isn't always a waste — it can be a prototype for the next wave, a cautionary tale or even the launchpad for something better.

Iridium (Satellite Phones): Failed commercially at launch, went bankrupt in 1999.

But the satellite network was later revived by the US Department of Defense and other industries needing remote communications.

Today, Iridium operates a global satellite network with real users — including emergency services, aviation and military.
 
Legacy: Proved viability of LEO (low Earth orbit) satellite constellations — a concept now driving Starlink.
 
Innovation isn’t just about celebrating the survivors — it’s about learning from the fallen. Some failures fade quietly. Others become the launching pads for the future.
 
 
The Future of ChatGPT?
 
The future of ChatGPT remains uncertain, even though it has triggered an AI boom in under three years. The AI boom is a rapid surge in development, investment and adoption of artificial intelligence technologies across industries, changing how we work, live and interact.
 
Aswath Damodaran, NYU Stern School of Business professor wrote a year ago: "AI's net positive effect on markets overall will be surprisingly small. The reason is that there will be only a few big winners, but many wannabes, losers, and market chasers who are forced to invest in the new technology merely to keep up." 

As Damodaran notes, the hype around revolutionary technologies tends to produce a handful of big winners, while the rest are followers, chasers or failures. From internet, online commerce to smartphones to AI today, we've seen the survivorship bias movie play out consistently.

It’s easy to see why experts like Damodaran remain sceptical — history shows that most technological revolutions benefit a few dominant players, while the rest struggle to survive.

- - -
 
 
 
------------------------ 
 
References:
 
Above image: Google Gemini 
 
 
Human Genome Project completion by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair 
 
The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen 
 
 
Other examples of failed or overhyped technologies : 3D television, hoverboards, Facebook Libra cryptocurrency, AOL, New Coke, BlackBerry, Microsoft Bing, Napster, Apple Newton MessagePad, Tata Nano, Amazon Fire Phone, Netscape Navigator, Palm Pilot, Apple iTunes and others.


 

Sunday, 7 September 2025

The Great GST Trick: Why 5% May Be Costing You More Than You Think 07Sep2025

The Great GST Trick: Why 5% May Be Costing You More Than You Think 07Sep2025


 
 
 
 

 
 
(The views expressed here are for information purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation or investment advice. While the author is a CFA Charterholder with nearly 25 years of experience in financial markets, this content is intended to share general insights and does not constitute financial guidance. Please consult your financial adviser before taking any investment decision. Safe to assume the author has a vested interest in stocks / investments discussed if any.)
 

Abbreviations used:

GST Goods and Services Tax
ITC input tax credit
GOI Government of India
VAT value added tax 


 
 
Government of India on 03Sep2025 announced GST rate cuts on a large number of daily essential items, electronic appliances, stationery items, passenger cars, two wheelers, farm equipment and others -- providing relief to  huge populace.
 
India's prime minister Narendra Modi made a promise of GST rate cuts during his August 15th Independence Day speech and the promise was fulfilled four days ago.  

As an India consumer, I'm personally happy that GST on items, like, air conditioners, cars, two wheelers, snacks, utensils, televisions, dish washers, shampoo, toothpaste, dairy items and health / life insurance has been reduced.
 
(Sidenote: After seeing all the new reduced GST rates, now only do we realise how we have been scammed spectacularly by GOI, with extraordinarily high GST rates, for all these eight years since the introduction of GST)
 
However, when you look at the macro picture, there are several inefficiencies in the GST structure. As you know, GST was introduced in India with fanfare on 01Jul2017. 
 
India’s economic debates often get hijacked by intermittent consumer-friendly tweaks, while the deep structural cracks in our systems go unnoticed.
 
As a consumer, I love seeing 0 per cent or 5 per cent GST on my favorite products. But when I learned how input tax credits work — or don’t work — I realised that what feels like a tax break may actually be a hidden tax trap. 
 
The convoluted GST system makes me feel like I’m saving, but in the long run, I might just be paying differently — and blindly.

Maybe it’s time Indians shifted focus from scattered GST rate cuts to the bigger picture — a simple, fair and transparent indirect tax system. 

For far too long, the deeper GST structural problems have been hurting both consumers and businesses: too many slabs, tax cliffs, blocked input tax credits and confusing compliance burdens. 

These are not just technical flaws — they erode trust, distort markets and hold back growth. If we truly care about building a stronger Indian economy, it’s not lower rates we should demand — it’s better design. 
 
 
2. Definitions 
 
Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a single tax that you pay when you buy something or use a service — like eating at a restaurant, booking a hotel, buying clothes or using your mobile phone.

It replaced many older taxes (like value added tax or VAT, service tax, excise, octroi, entry tax and others) with one unified tax across India.

Before GST:

You were paying many hidden taxes — at every step from manufacturing to selling — and they all added up in the final price. You didn’t even see most of them.

After GST:

You pay just one transparent tax at the end — and the businesses get to claim back the tax they already paid during the process. This avoids “tax on tax”, which makes things cheaper in theory.

Whether you buy a car or get a haircut, GST applies.

Different items are taxed at 0, 0.10, 0.25, 1, 1.5, 3, 5, 7.5 12, 18, or 28 per cent. Effective from 22Sep2025, 12 and 28 per cent slabs are getting removed, while a new 40 per cent slab is being introduced. 
 
As per an article written, along with others, by India's former chief economic advisor Dr Arvind Subramanian, there are 45 distinct GST tax rates in India.  

Input Tax Credit (ITC) means a business can subtract the GST it already paid on raw materials and services from the GST it collects from buyers when selling the final product. For example, a chocolate maker pays GST on sugar, wrappers and transport; and then collects GST when selling the chocolate bar — ITC lets them claim back the tax paid on inputs. 

This avoids double taxation and helps keep prices lower for consumers. However, in some GST slabs like 0 or 5 per cent, ITC is not allowed, so the hidden taxes get passed on to the consumer.

ITC is like getting a refund on the tax you already paid while making something — so you don’t get taxed twice.
 
 
3. GST original objectives 
 
But beneath the veneer of these rate cuts and slabs announced on 03Sep2025 lies a tax system that looks simple but behaves unfairly — often penalising both producers and consumers in ways that aren't immediately visible.

Before we delve deep into the design flaws of the GST structure, let us briefly see what the original objectives of GST were when it was introduced in 2017. They were:

One Nation, One Tax: Creating a Unified National Market
Eliminate Cascading Taxes (Tax on Tax)
Simplify the Indirect Tax System and Easing Compliance
Increasing the Taxpayer Base and Revenue 
Some claimed GST would boost India GDP by 1-1.5%age points 
 
 
4. The illusion of low GST rates  
 
Let us now discuss some of the inefficiencies in GST framework:
 
5% GST slab is deceptively low: Consumers falsely believe that 0 or 5 per cent GST tax slab on several goods and services is good for them. The low rates are seen as a government favour to the poor and middle class. 
 
And they thank the governments in power for these low GST rates while the politicians at the hustings are amply rewarded by consumers. 

So, everybody is happy: The consumers are happy with their public perception of 0 or 5 per cent GST and the politicians are happy with their incentives.
 
Tax Incidence Is Hidden: Even if the consumer sees 5 per cent on the bill, they don’t realise how much tax is built into the final price via input costs, logistics and others taxed at higher slabs (for example, 18%).

Five per cent isn’t Always 5 per cent: In many cases, businesses don’t get full ITC benefit for goods/services taxed at 5 per cent, leading to cost buildup. They pass that to consumers.

Illusion of Affordability: A lower tax rate doesn't mean the product is cheap—just that it's less obviously taxed. The actual economic burden can still be high.

It’s a textbook case of policy optics: make something look good, even if the deeper economics are not favourable.

The majority of voters don’t scrutinise tax policy or understand effective tax incidence. Emotional narratives (“we reduced your taxes”) beat technical explanations (“input tax credit is blocked, so effective cost is higher”). 
 
While a 5 per cent or nil tax on goods and services look good on the surface, it leads to economic distortions. 

Imagine a scenario where a manufacturer's output is taxed at 5 per cent while his inputs are taxed at 18 per cent. Five per cent GST rate does not allow him to claim ITC for the 18 per cent GST he paid on his inputs. 
 
So, what he will do now to evade GST is look for unregistered suppliers out of the GST system and avoid paying the 18 per cent GST on his inputs (evading GST is punishable under law is a different issue).

This defeats the original purpose of GST. This way, the flawed GST design drives manufacturers from formal to informal economy. 
 
Let's see how this works with a practical example with beauty and physical well-being services, like, hair saloon, beauty palours, spas and gyms:
 
These services are currently (before 22Sep2025) are taxed at 18 per cent with ITC and from 22Sep2025, they will be charged with 5 per cent GST without ITC. 
 
What this means for businesses: A salon or gym will now charge customers only 5 per cent GST, making the final bill deceptively cheaper for the consumer. 
 
However, they can no longer claim a refund for the GST they paid on their business-related purchases. This means the GST they paid on things like rent, air conditioning and equipment becomes a cost to their business.

The Impact: This is a classic "tax cliff" or, more accurately, a policy trade-off.

For the Consumer: It looks like immediate benefit. A service that cost Rs 1,180 (including 18% GST) may now cost, on paper, Rs 1,050 (including 5% GST) from 22Sep2025.

For the Business: The effect is more complex. While the lower rate is expected to drive more foot traffic and increase business volume, the loss of ITC could impact the profit margins of businesses with high input costs. 
 
As such, it's quite likely the business will not absorb the loss of ITC and will increase the base price to offset the loss of ITC. 
 
Net-net, the overall price (including GST) for the user of these services is likely to remain the same for some time after the new lower GST is kicked in on 22Sep2025.

While the government intention to provide such services affordable to the general public is laudable, the loss of ITC for businesses creates a distortion. 
 
As cautioned by Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia in a recent interview, GST reforms and GST tax cuts are two different things. We should not conflate one with the other.
  
Experts like Ahluwalia and Arvind Subramanian have repeatedly warned that cosmetic tweaks aren’t reform. 
 
 
5. Multiplicity of rates  
 
The number of GST rates are insanely high at 45. Even after the removal of 12 and 28 per cent slabs and introduction of 40 per cent slab, the distinct number of tax slabs are mindbogglingly unjustifiable. 
 
This is providing a vast incentive for manufacturers and service providers to place their goods / services under lower tax slabs. The current multiple rate GST system leads to tax evasion through mis-classification.  
 
 
6. Tax Cliff burden 
  
A tax cliff in the Indian GST context refers to a situation where a small change in a product's price or a business's turnover can cause a sudden, significant increase in the applicable GST rate. This happens when a specific threshold is crossed, causing a disproportionate tax burden.
 
This creates a situation where:

> The effective tax burden increases sharply

> Businesses are incentivised to manipulate prices to stay below the cliff

> It leads to market distortion, loss of transparency and revenue collection inefficiencies. 
 
Price-Based Tax Rate Changes:

Certain goods and services have different GST rates depending on their price. If the price of a product or service crosses a specific threshold, it can jump to a much higher tax slab. 
 
For example: Currently, hotel rooms upto and including Rs 7,500 tariff per room per day are taxed with a GST of 12 per cent with ITC; and room tariffs above Rs 7,500 are taxed with 18 per cent GST with ITC.
 
From 22Sep2025 onwards:
 
1) upto Rs 7,500: 5% without ITC 
 
2) above Rs 7,500: 18% with ITC (no change) 
 
In the case of rooms costing above Rs 7,500, there is no change in the tax rate and they can continue to claim ITC even after 22Sep2025.
 
For room tariffs costing Rs 7,500 and below, the situation is a conundrum, because they can't claim ITC. As you know, hotels spend a lot on inputs like:
 
Linen, toiletries and cleaning supplies
Furniture and room interiors
Electricity, maintenance services
Kitchen and restaurant supplies
Air conditioning, electronics
IT systems, booking platforms and software

Most of these inputs attract 18 per cent GST for hotel businesses. For rooms with tariff of Rs 7,500 and below, they cannot claim 18 per cent GST they paid on the above inputs.
 
As such, their effective cost of operation goes up and it's most likely they will pass on the costs to the guests, nullifying the lower GST rate.
 
To make up for the loss of input credit, hotels often increase the base tariff slightly, which reduces or cancels out the benefit of the lower GST for the customer.

Example: At present, a hotel that could have charged Rs 6,000 + 12% = Rs 6,720 (with ITC), might now charge Rs 6,400 + 5% = Rs 6,720 (without ITC). The result is no saving for the customer and lower transparency.  
  
This leads to:

Incentives to under-invoice
Loss of revenue for the government
Market distortion

Hotels may artificially keep room rates just below Rs 7,500 to stay in the lower slab.

Apparel sellers may split combo packs or strip discounts to keep items below Rs 2,500. (Apparel / clothes of value not exceeding Rs 2,500 will be charged at 5% GST without ITC effective 22Sep2025. And clothes costing above Rs 2,500 will be charged at 18% GST, increased from current 12%, from 22Sep2025.)

This leads to economic inefficiency and compliance manipulation.
 
Price ≠ luxury:

A Rs 7,501 room in a metro is basic. In a Tier-3 city, it might be luxury.

A Rs 2,501 kurta could be formal wear for a wedding, or just a branded workwear item.

This system uses price as a moral filter, which doesn’t hold up in practice. 

As clarified by Ahluwalia, progressive tax system is used with direct taxes, subsidies and direct income transfers to the public; not with indirect taxes like GST.

This has been the international norm. 

Indirect taxes, like GST, should not have a wide variation of rates / slabs. 

Hotel rooms with tariffs of Rs 7,500 at one rate and above the threshold at another rate; and apparel/ clothes of Rs 2,500 at one rate and above at higher rate – this type of GST slab system is completely wrong.

With this flawed GST design and structure, the original objective of a simplified and efficient tax collection system has not been achieved. 

The likes of Subramanian and Ahluwalia have stated that GST (including cesses) share of GDP has failed to rise after GST's introduction in 2017, as compared to total taxes collected prior to 2017. Which means, the tax base has not increased post-GST. 
 
 
7. Zero tax on insurance premium  
 
While citizens are happy with zero GST on individual health and life insurance premiums, there are certain nuances to this zero tax claim. 
 
According to a moneycontrol report, insurance premiums after 22Sep2025 may rise by 1 to 4 per cent, due to tax distortions. Effective 22Sep2025, insurance companies cannot claim ITC on the costs incurred by them.
 
Effective 22Sep2025, the GST on insurance premiums is reduced to zero from 18 per cent.
 
Insurers pay 18 per cent GST on expenses like agent commissions, rent, marketing and others.

With nil GST on insurance premiums from 22Sep2025, insurance companies can no longer claim ITC on their operational expenses -- so in order to protect theier profit margins, they might hike the base premium to account for the loss of ITC.

It is estimated insurers’ operational costs to climb by 5–7 per cent, which could translate into pricing adjustments—hence, a 1–4 per cent premium hike is anticipated to cushion the impact. 
 

8. Concluding Thoughts 
  
Economists, like, Vijay Kelkar, Arbind Modi, Ajay Shah and Montek Singh Ahluwalia have long batted for a single-rate GST and their voices have unfortunately fallen on deaf ears. 
 
As pointed out by them on various occasion over the years, structural GST inefficiencies include:

> Faulty GST Council setup 

> No open discussion on the GST proposals presented to GST Council

> distorted vote share (skewed in favour of the Centre) in the GST Council

> GST introduction is a huge positive, but it's not ideal

> GST share of GDP failed to rise after 2017

> GST system is complicated 

> Too many GST rates / slabs

> GST compensation cess, for states revenue shortfall if any, is an aberration (this goes against federalism and simplicity)

For long, they have advocated:

> Single-rate 14 per cent GST (split into 6% for Centre + 6% for states + 2% for urban local bodies - urban bodies need their own tax revenues if you urbanisation to be a big success)

> Overhaul of GST Council setup

 
As enunciated in Laffer Curve phenomenon, with low single-rate GST, the government's overall GST tax revenue could rise, simplifying things for citizens and removing tax collection inefficiencies.
  
A simplified, uniform GST structure with fewer slabs and transparent pricing, along with better public education on tax policy will go a long way in GST reform.
 
True GST reform involves: Single-rate GST or at least just two rates, seamless input tax credit (ITC), wider base, fewer exemptions, stable and predictable rates, robust, tech-driven compliance and no tax terrorism. 
 

 
 
- - -
 
 
 
------------------------
 
Additional notes:
 
1. The politics of 0% GST on more than  50%  of the items in the CPI basket.
 
Since the introduction of GST, more than 50% of the items in the CPI basket have been out the GST purview. This is a deliberate political and economic strategy by the Government of India to keep CPI inflation under control. 
 
After the GST tax rates were reduced effective 22Sep2025, some are arguing lower inflation induced by GST rate cuts will nudge Reserve Bank of India to effect Repo rate cuts. This is a naive view in my opinion given the fact that more than 50 per cent of the items in CPI basket attract nil GST. 
 
GST isn’t as comprehensive as it appears. In fact, more than 50% of the items in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) basket — which includes essentials like food, fuel, and housing — are outside the GST net altogether. 
 
Items like petrol, diesel, alcohol, electricity and most real estate transactions continue to be taxed separately by states. This not only breaks the chain of input tax credit in many industries (especially transport and logistics) but also means the effective tax burden on consumers remains opaque. 

Fuel: Not under GST > No ITC on fuel costs for businesses > Increased costs passed to consumers

Food items: Many are exempt > Creates challenges in claiming ITC for related supply chain inputs

Alcohol: Major revenue item for states, kept outside GST 

Electricity: Excluded > Manufacturing and services industries can't claim ITC on power bills 
 
 
2. Notes from Montek Singh Ahluwali interview on 04Sep2025 and another on 03Sep2025: 
 
GST Coucil setup is faulty
No open discussion on the GST proposals presented to GST Council
GST introduction is a huge positive, but it's not ideal
GST share of GDP failed to rise
GST system is complicated 
We've too many GST rates / slabs

GST compensation cess, for states revenue shortfall if any, is an aberration
(this goes against federalism and simplicity)

With GST of 0% and 5%, there in no benefit of input tax credit (ITC)

Ideal GST: Single-rate 14% (6% Centre + 6% States + 2% local urban local bodies)
If ideal GST / uniform rate is not possible, maybe we can have just two rates

Urbanisation cannot happen without any specific GST revenue given to them
5% GST slab is too low

 

------------------------

References:
 
Above image courtesy: massive Tweet thread on GST (First Details of GST structure) thread 19May2017 - Bibek Debroy comments - dual GST: CGST and SGST - IGST - multiple GST rates - GST means Great and Simple Tinkering - GST Council - check posts abolished - 10-headed Ravana - Ten-headed Ravana -
 
 
 
Tweet  04Sep2025 Arvind Subramanian and other article - flawed GST rate structure - 45 distinct GST tax rates / slabs - See below image for this article 
 

 
 
Tweet on "sin tax" - Govt panel in Dec2015 suggested 40% GST on "sin goods" like carbonated drinks
 
Flawless GST by Vijay Kelkar 12Oct2009
 
Tweet 01Jul2017 new GST rates and Gazette notification 
 
Tweet 13May2015 what new GST for economic agents 
 
Tweet 13May2015 VAT vs GST  
 
FM Arun Jaitley rules out postponement of GST: "You've a Constitutional compulsion to put in place GST before 16Sep2017 - Tweet 02Dec2016
 
GST compensation cess Tweet 03Nov2016
 
Burj Khalifa cess 03Nov2016 
 
Tweet 03Nov2016 - 0% GST on 50% of items in CPI basket
 
Tweet thread 07Sep2025 - impact of GST rate cuts and heavy monsoon rains on consumption during Jul-Sep2025 quarter 
 
Tweet 25Jul2017 De-stocking by trade ahead of GST rollout - Asian Paints and Pidilite Industries reported 20% fall in net profit in Apr-Jul2017 quarter
 
Tweet thread 22Oct2016 - possible GST rollout, low inventory, de-stocking by traders and low sales
 
 A series of Tweets on GST 2013 to 2021
 
GST blog  GST First Discussion Paper 11Nov2009
 
Scribd VRK100  GST First Discussion Paper 11Nov2009
 

 
------------------- 
 
Read more:
 
Blog of Blogs Theme-wise 
 
Weblinks and Investing
 
India Fixed Income Data Bank
 
Indian Economy Data Bank 

India Forex Data Bank 
 
Corporate Groups and Listed Companies 29Dec2024
 
Corporate Governance Concerns - Indian Companies 13Dec2024
 
Stocks and Peer Comparison by Industry 16Feb2024  
 
various uploads on Scribd by VRK100  
 
 
 
The Great GST Trick: Why 5% May Be Costing You More Than You Think 07Sep2025 
 
Listed Indian Companies Behind Most Popular Brands in India 06Sep2025 
 
A Quick Insight into the FREEDOM 100 Emerging Markets Index 21Aug2025 
 
Under Podger Needed Help. I Just Needed a Torch. 20Aug2025
 
ADR / GDR Valuation for Indian Companies - Demystified! 18Aug2025 
 
Notes from Damodaran's Corporate Life Cycle Thesis 18Aug2025 
 
Nifty Midcap 150 Quality 50 Index: Has Quality Lost Its Edge? 10Aug2025 
 
How America Lives on Borrowed Money -- And Gets Away with It!  10Aug2025
 
Decoding the Nifty Midcap 150 Quality 50: A Midcap Strategy Built on Fundamentals 07Aug2025 
 
Ownership Trends in NSE-listed Universe of Stocks 31Mar2025 
 
India Loves Banks, America Loves Tech - What the Sectors Weight Say! 30Jun2025 
 
Nifty 50 Index Evolution Over a Decade 2015 to 2025 
 
NSE Emerging Indices Comparison 30Jun2025  
 
Passive Titans of India: The Top 10 Equity Indices by Fund Size 17Jul2025
  

-------------------

Disclosure:  I've got a vested interest in Indian stocks and other investments. It's safe to assume I've interest in the financial instruments / products discussed, if any.

Disclaimer: The analysis and opinion provided here are only for information purposes and should not be construed as investment advice. Investors should consult their own financial advisers before making any investments. The author is a CFA Charterholder with a vested interest in financial markets.

------------------------

CFA Charter credentials  - CFA Member Profile

CFA New Badge 

CFA Badge