The Goods and Services Tax (GST) was meant to simplify the tax system, inject a good measure of uniformity nationwide, and make the entire exercise of tax collection transparent. In fact, it was billed as a "one-nation, one-tax" initiative—a single market with free movement of goods and services between states, eliminating delays and corruption at inter-state barriers.

The concept itself is not new. France introduced it way back in 1954, and by and large, it has worked well there without causing much hassle for either tax collectors or taxpayers.

Though successive governments in India had mooted the idea, credit for successfully getting the states on board and convincing them to surrender their exclusive power to levy tax on a whole range of goods and services to a collective body headed by the Union Finance Minister goes to the Modi government.

The late Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s consensual style played a key role, ensuring that finance ministers of state governments with sharp ideological differences—ranging from TMC-led Bengal and Marxist-led Kerala to Congress-ruled states—agreed on a uniform nationwide tax for multiple goods and services.

Despite misgivings in certain sections of business and industry, and despite initial hiccups in implementation due to an unrefined digital platform, the country has largely come to terms with the amalgamation of multiple taxes into a few slabs.

These changes do simplify tax collection. Aside from liquor and petroleum products, taxation on virtually everything else was subsumed under GST.

Initially starting with four broad tax slabs, the system soon ran into issues with differential rates on single items due to minor variations in characterization—like bread and buns or chapatis and pre-packed parathas.

This has become a headache for both taxpayers and tax collectors. Whether such minute differences in classification should be eliminated for the sake of simplifying tax collection and easing the burden on small and medium businesses is a moot question.

For instance, the quantum of loss to the exchequer if different rates of taxation on buns and cream buns were merged into a single, uniform tax cannot be substantial. In any case, for the sake of a less complicated system and smoother business operations, a small loss in revenue would make immense sense.

Such nitpicking differences in taxation are a recipe for corruption, as giving discretionary powers to tax officials always carries risks.

Most businesses selling buns or cream buns are invariably part of the self-employed small-scale sector. Complicating their lives with unnecessary differentiations should have been avoided.

Or take the latest example of pettifogging by tax officials. At its most recent meeting earlier this month, the GST Council made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

It classified popcorn into three different tax slabs, attracting varying degrees of taxation: salted and spicy popcorn at 5%, pre-packed and labeled popcorn at 12%, and caramelized or sugar-mixed popcorn at 18%.

If the Council disclosed the total tax revenue it seeks to collect from each variety of popcorn, it is not publicly known. However, it is safe to assume the amount cannot be substantial enough to warrant such tiresome distinctions.

When finance ministers—both Union and state—meet to review the working of GST, they must remain conscious of its central purpose: making taxation less complicated, more transparent, and simple to implement.

Multi-layering tax on single items based on minor differences in characterization runs counter to this purpose and certainly does not promote ease of doing business in India.

Another perplexing decision from the same GST Council meeting concerns electric vehicles. While the tax rate for used cars is proposed to increase from 12% to 18%, new electric cars will continue to be taxed at 12%.

This so-called rationalization adds to business confusion. Thankfully, individual sellers of old electric cars who claim depreciation in their annual tax returns are spared any levy on sale proceeds.

Meanwhile, it is regrettable that the GST Council deferred a decision to abolish the 18% levy on health and life insurance premiums.

As it stands, premiums for health insurance policies are rising almost every year, making it difficult even for middle-class families to afford medical insurance.

Before the meeting, it was suggested that the GST Council could at least remove the levy for senior citizens or lower it to 12%, if not 5%, for others. Yet, the Council chose to defer the decision.

Similarly deferred was the decision on GST levied on food delivery charges by platforms like Swiggy and Zomato. Given the growing popularity of these platforms in urban and semi-urban areas, imposing GST on food delivery charges adds to the convenience costs borne by individual customers.

The point is simple. Given the increasing digitization of the economy and rising vigilance against tax evasion, the GST Council should focus on reducing tax slabs, rationalizing taxation, and foregoing relatively small amounts in tax revenue rather than creating different tax slabs for single items based on minor variations.

It is laughable to classify the humble popcorn into three separate tax slabs. A single, uniform tax—perhaps the average of the current rates—would suffice.