The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is urging India’s central and state governments to coordinate reforms beyond tax, arguing that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council’s consensus-building process could address rules affecting projects.
CII’s proposal spans land use, labor administration, construction permissions, utility connections, logistics and local regulatory approvals. It asks central and state authorities to apply the GST Council’s consensus approach to that wider agenda, CII Director General Chandrajit Banerjee said. Banerjee said, “We need similar coordination and reform commitment across land, labour, construction, utilities and local permissions to improve the ease, cost and speed of doing business.”
The Council’s 57th meeting took place in New Delhi on Oct. 8, chaired by Union Finance and Corporate Affairs Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The Ministry of Finance said the Council recommended omitting Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, a change that would remove arrest powers under the law, and raising the prosecution threshold from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore. It also recommended narrowing certain offenses under Section 132 and rationalizing punishments. The meeting agenda included changes to registration, returns, refunds and adjudication, as well as trade-facilitation measures, the ministry said.
The Economic Times separately reported that CII described firms as navigating repeated obligations, several public bodies and state-by-state variation, which it said can increase expenses and stretch project schedules.
CII said the GST enforcement recommendations could reduce uncertainty, legal costs and management disruption for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and first-generation entrepreneurs. The industry group linked those potential gains to a more predictable regulatory environment.
The Council’s tax enforcement recommendations apply to GST law; they do not set a program for CII’s wider proposal. The broader request is for coordination and reform across the named policy areas. CII’s reported remarks did not identify specific offenses for amendment, propose legislation or set a timetable.
