What are the main mechanisms through which the central government transfers resources to States in India?

The central government transfers resources to States primarily through three channels: tax devolution, grants-in-aid, and centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) . Tax devolution is governed by the recommendations of successive Finance Commissions (FCs), which determine both the overall share of central taxes for States and the formula for distribution among them. Grants-in-aid are direct transfers to States, often meant to support specific functions, under Article 275 of the Constitution. Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) are funds for sector-specific programs, such as health, education, and infrastructure, where the Centre bears a substantial portion of the costs but the scheme is implemented by the States. While these mechanisms aim to ensure fiscal federalism, concerns have arisen regarding erosion of fiscal autonomy of States due to the increasing dominance of CSS, revenue losses from GST rate cuts, and the Centre’s growing reliance on cesses and surcharges that are not shared with States. For example, from 2020-21 to 2024-25, the Centre devolved 41% of gross tax revenues to States in line with the 15th FC, alongside additional grants and CSS transfers totaling ₹75.12 lakh crore. States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal received the largest shares, highlighting the balance between equity and contribution in fiscal transfers.

Why has the use of GSDP as a proxy for State-level tax contributions gained prominence in India?

The use of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) as a proxy for estimating State-level tax contributions has gained prominence because direct tax collection data does not accurately reflect where economic activity occurs . Many companies operate across multiple States, yet their tax payments are recorded at the location of their registered office. For instance, automobile manufacturers in Tamil Nadu sell vehicles nationwide, but taxes are recorded in the State of registration. Similarly, plantation companies in Kerala contribute taxes for profits earned across the country. Since GSDP represents the underlying economic base of a State, it provides a more reliable estimate of potential tax accrual, assuming uniform efficiency in tax administration. Empirical evidence supports this approach: the correlation between GSDP and direct tax collections in 2023-24 was 0.75, and between GSDP and GST collections was 0.91, indicating a strong alignment with actual revenue contributions. Thus, a GSDP-based formula balances efficiency by reflecting States’ contributions to national tax revenue and equity by allowing redistribution to less prosperous regions. It also addresses the mismatch between registered tax contributions and production or consumption activity, providing a fairer basis for intergovernmental transfers.

How do current tax devolution mechanisms affect high-contributing States like Maharashtra and Karnataka?

High-contributing States such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu often argue that they contribute disproportionately to central tax revenues but receive relatively smaller shares through tax devolution. For example, Maharashtra accounted for 40.3% of combined direct tax and GST collections but received only 6.64% of total transfers from the Centre between 2020-21 and 2024-25. Karnataka contributed 12.65% of total tax collections but received 3.9% in transfers, while Tamil Nadu contributed 7.61% and received 4.66%. This discrepancy arises because Finance Commissions traditionally prioritize equity over efficiency , using criteria such as population and income distance rather than strictly reflecting tax contributions. Additionally, GST being destination-based leads to further adjustments that sometimes disadvantage high-contributing States. If tax devolution were based more heavily on GSDP shares, these States would see their contributions better reflected. Simulations suggest that Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu would gain the most under a purely GSDP-based formula, improving perceptions of fairness while still preserving redistribution to less prosperous States.

What causes the mismatch between States’ tax collection shares and their devolution shares?

The mismatch between tax collection shares and devolution shares arises due to multiple factors: Location of tax payment: Companies often pay taxes in the State of their registered office rather than where economic activity occurs, distorting direct tax contributions. Formula-driven devolution: Finance Commissions use weighted criteria like population, fiscal capacity, and income distance to determine devolution, prioritizing equity over efficiency. Destination-based GST: While GST attribution across States is relatively straightforward, other indirect and direct taxes may not accurately reflect production or income generation. Policy decisions: The increasing dominance of CSS and cesses/surcharges retained by the Centre further constrains the flexibility and effective share of high-performing States. Consequently, States like Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, which generate high revenues, receive disproportionately lower transfers, while States with larger populations or lower fiscal capacity receive higher devolution shares, highlighting the tension between equity and efficiency in India’s federal fiscal system.

Can you provide examples of States that gain or lose under a GSDP-based transfer formula?

Simulations of GSDP-based transfers suggest that nine of the 20 major States would gain, while others would lose. Gainers: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu would benefit the most, as their economic production exceeds the current recognition through tax devolution. These States contribute significantly to national income, and a GSDP-based formula would better align their transfers with actual economic activity. Losers: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh would experience reductions in transfers under a purely GSDP-based allocation. These States currently receive higher shares under the 15th FC recommendations, largely due to population-based equity weighting. However, the reductions would be moderate, as GSDP shares do not differ drastically from current devolution outcomes. Such an adjustment could enhance the perceived fairness of transfers, acknowledge actual economic contributions, and incentivize States to improve productivity and economic output.

Critically analyze the trade-off between equity and efficiency in India’s inter-governmental fiscal transfers.

India’s inter-governmental fiscal transfer system embodies a trade-off between equity and efficiency . Equity-focused approaches, as reflected in successive Finance Commissions, prioritize redistribution to States with lower fiscal capacity or higher expenditure needs. This ensures support for underdeveloped regions but often under-rewards States that contribute more to national revenues, creating perceptions of unfairness. Efficiency-based approaches, such as using GSDP to approximate tax contributions, better align transfers with economic performance. High-contributing States receive transfers proportional to their actual economic output, encouraging productivity and accountability. However, a purely efficiency-driven system could widen regional disparities by reducing support for States with lower fiscal capacity. Therefore, a balanced approach is necessary. GSDP-based proxies can complement population and fiscal need criteria, preserving redistribution to weaker States while acknowledging contributions of high-performing States, improving both the credibility and functionality of India’s federal fiscal architecture.

How can India improve the fairness and credibility of its tax devolution system?

India can improve fairness and credibility in tax devolution through several measures: Incorporating GSDP-based allocation: Using States’ GSDP shares as a primary indicator aligns transfers with actual economic activity and contributions. Balancing equity and efficiency: Adjusting weights assigned to population, fiscal capacity, and income distance while maintaining redistribution ensures that poorer States receive support without penalizing high-contributing States. Transparency in data: Improving State-wise tax collection reporting and inter-State transaction data reduces distortions caused by multi-State firms and cross-border economic activity. Periodic review of FC criteria: Successive Finance Commissions should assess the relevance of formula parameters in the context of GST, cesses, and CSS dominance. Such measures can strengthen the perceived fairness of transfers, incentivize States to increase productivity, and enhance overall fiscal federalism by ensuring that resources reflect both contribution and need.

Search Today Mains CSAT

GSDP Share as a Fair Criterion for Central State Tax Devolution

Why using GSDP share can balance equity and efficiency in Finance Commission based central transfers

Surya

•January 9, 2026•6 mins read

Centre shares taxes with States, balancing equity and contribution

India’s federal fiscal architecture is anchored in constitutionally mandated transfers from the Union to States, primarily guided by the Finance Commission (FC). Articles 268–281 empower the FC to recommend both the vertical share of States in central taxes and the horizontal distribution among States. Successive Finance Commissions have...