👉 GST Council in India: Formation, Functions & Key Challenges in the Tax System

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council stands as a cornerstone of India's cooperative federalism, embodying a unique institutional mechanism for unified indirect taxation. Established to harmonise the diverse tax structures across the nation, it plays a pivotal role in shaping India's economic landscape. This comprehensive guide delves into the formation, functions, and persistent challenges faced by the GST Council, vital for UPSC, State PCS, law, and political science aspirants.

📚 Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council: Formation, Functions, and Challenges in India’s Tax System

1. Introduction

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) represents one of India's most significant indirect tax reforms since independence. Implemented on July 1, 2017, GST replaced a multitude of central and state-level indirect taxes, aiming to create a common national market, reduce the cascading effect of taxes, and boost economic growth. At the heart of this unified tax regime is the GST Council, a constitutional body designed to facilitate joint decision-making between the Union and State governments on all matters related to GST. Its formation underscores a paradigm shift towards cooperative federalism in fiscal policy, where the Centre and states collaboratively determine tax policies rather than acting independently.

2. Historical and Constitutional Background

The idea of a national GST in India was first mooted by the Kelkar Committee in 2004. The concept gained traction under the Vajpayee government in 2000, which formed an Empowered Committee (EC) of State Finance Ministers to design a GST model suitable for India. The then Finance Minister P. Chidambaram proposed GST implementation by April 1, 2010, in his 2006 budget speech. However, the journey to its enactment was long and complex, requiring extensive deliberations due to India's federal structure and the need for consensus among states with varying fiscal interests.

The Constitution (122nd Amendment) Bill, 2014, was introduced in Parliament, eventually passing as the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. This landmark amendment paved the way for GST by conferring simultaneous power upon Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws governing goods and services tax.

Constituent Assembly Debates & Federal Fiscal Relations

While specific Constituent Assembly debates on Article 279A are not directly available (as the article was inserted much later), the broader discussions during the framing of the Constitution on federal fiscal relations are crucial. The framers grappled with the challenge of balancing a strong Centre with autonomous states, particularly regarding taxation powers. The pre-GST era saw a clear demarcation of taxation powers, with the Centre levying excise duty and service tax, and states levying VAT and entry tax. This often led to a "cascading effect" of taxes, where tax was levied on tax, and credit for taxes paid to one government could not be offset against taxes paid to another. The 101st Amendment, by introducing the GST Council, sought to overcome these historical fragmentation issues and foster a collaborative mechanism for indirect tax policy, reflecting an evolution in cooperative federalism.

Key Constitutional Provisions

The GST Council is a constitutional body established under Article 279A of the Indian Constitution. This article was inserted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016.

• Article 279A(1): Mandates the President to constitute a Council, to be called the Goods and Services Tax Council, within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. The notification for bringing into force Article 279A was issued on September 10, 2016, with effect from September 12, 2016.
• Article 246A: Grants Parliament and the Legislature of every State the power to make laws with respect to GST imposed by the Union or by such State, respectively. This establishes concurrent legislative power.
• Article 269A: Deals with the levy and collection of GST on inter-state supply of goods and services, and the apportionment of the revenue between the Centre and the states, with rules to be framed by the GST Council.

3. Formation and Composition of the GST Council

The Union Cabinet approved the setting up of the GST Council on September 12, 2016, and its Secretariat in New Delhi. The first meeting of the GST Council was held on September 22-23, 2016.

Composition (Article 279A(2) & (3)):

The GST Council is a joint forum of the Centre and the states, comprising 33 members:

1. Union Finance Minister: Chairperson of the Council.
2. Union Minister of State in charge of Revenue or Finance: Member.
3. Minister in charge of Finance or Taxation or any other Minister nominated by each State Government: Members.
4. (Special Case) Any person nominated by the Governor of the State where there is a proclamation of emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.

• Vice-Chairperson: The members from the states choose one amongst themselves to be the Vice-Chairperson of the Council for such period as they may decide.
• Permanent Invitee (Non-voting): The Chairperson of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC, formerly Central Board of Excise and Customs) is a permanent invitee to all proceedings of the GST Council.
• Ex-officio Secretary: The Union Revenue Secretary acts as the ex-officio Secretary to the Council.
• Secretariat: The GST Council Secretariat is located in New Delhi and is manned by officers taken on deputation from both the Central and State Governments.

Diagram: Structure of the GST Council

graph TD
    A[GST Council] --> B(Chairperson: Union Finance Minister);
    A --> C(Member: Union Minister of State for Revenue/Finance);
    A --> D(Members: State Finance/Taxation Ministers or nominated Ministers);
    D --> E{Choose Vice-Chairperson among themselves};
    F[Permanent Invitee: CBIC Chairperson (non-voting)] --> A;
    G[Ex-officio Secretary: Union Revenue Secretary] --> A;
    H[Secretariat (New Delhi)] --> A;

• Significance: This composition ensures representation from all states and union territories with legislatures, fostering a collaborative approach to indirect tax policy.

Decision-Making Process (Article 279A(7) & (8)):

The GST Council strives for a consensus-based approach in its decision-making. However, for proposals that require voting, a specific weighted voting mechanism is prescribed to reflect the federal balance:

• Quorum: One-half of the total number of members of the GST Council constitutes the quorum for its meetings.
• Weighted Votes:
  • The vote of the Central Government has a weightage of one-third of the total votes cast.
  • The votes of all the State Governments taken together have a weightage of two-thirds of the total votes cast.
• Majority: Any decision of the Council must be supported by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the weighted votes of the members present and voting.
• Procedure: The GST Council determines the procedure in the performance of its functions.
• Meeting Frequency: The Council meets periodically to deliberate and decide on various issues related to GST. While the Constitution does not specify the number of meetings per year, the Council ideally meets every quarter.

Flowchart: GST Council Decision-Making Process

graph TD
    A[Issue/Proposal Introduced] --> B{Discussion & Deliberation among Members};
    B --> C{Attempt for Consensus};
    C -- No Consensus --> D{Vote if necessary};
    D --> E[Central Government Vote (1/3 weight)];
    D --> F[State Governments Votes (2/3 weight)];
    E & F --> G{Calculate Total Weighted Votes};
    G -- ≥ 3/4th Majority --> H[Decision Carried];
    G -- < 3/4th Majority --> I[Proposal Rejected];

• Significance: This unique voting structure is designed to promote cooperative federalism, ensuring that neither the Centre nor the states can unilaterally dictate GST policy. It necessitates dialogue and compromise.

4. Institutional Framework & Functions

The GST Council's primary role is to make recommendations to the Union and State governments on all crucial matters related to GST, thereby ensuring a harmonised structure and the development of a unified national market for goods and services.

Key Functions and Responsibilities (Article 279A(4)):

1. Taxes, Cesses, and Surcharges: Recommending which taxes, cesses, and surcharges levied by the Centre, states, and local bodies would be subsumed in GST.
2. Goods and Services Subject to/Exempted from GST: Deciding which goods and services may be subjected to or exempted from GST. (e.g., petroleum crude, high-speed diesel, petrol, natural gas, and aviation turbine fuel are currently outside GST, and the Council recommends the date for their inclusion).
3. Model GST Laws: Formulating model GST Laws, principles of levy, apportionment of GST levied on inter-state transactions (IGST), and the principles that govern the place of supply.
4. Threshold Limits: Establishing threshold turnover limits below which businesses may be exempted from GST.
5. GST Rates: Setting GST rates, including the floor rates with bands, and special rates for raising additional resources during natural calamities or disasters. It periodically adjusts rates to balance economic demands, reducing them on essential goods and increasing them on luxury items.
6. Special Provisions for Certain States: Recommending special provisions with respect to the North-Eastern States, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand.
7. Compensation to States: Recommending the compensation to states for the loss of revenue arising from the introduction of GST for a period of five years. (Note: The five-year compensation guarantee ended in June 2022).
8. Procedures and Administration: Approving rules for GST registration, tax payments, and filing GST returns, and addressing issues related to tax administration.
9. Anti-Profiteering Measures: Responsible for compliance mechanisms, anti-profiteering measures, and prevention of tax evasion and fraud. (Note: As of December 1, 2022, all GST anti-profiteering complaints are dealt with by the Competition Commission of India (CCI)).
10. GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT): Recommended the creation of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) to handle appeals.

Table: Comparison of Pre-GST and Post-GST Tax Regimes

5. Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

The role and powers of the GST Council have been subject to judicial scrutiny, particularly concerning the binding nature of its recommendations.

Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

This landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered in May 2022, was a significant pronouncement on the nature of the GST Council's recommendations.

• Background: The case involved the levy of Integrated GST (IGST) on ocean freight under a reverse charge mechanism. Mohit Minerals challenged this levy, arguing it amounted to double taxation, and the Gujarat High Court had quashed the levy.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Apex Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision and ruled that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Central and State governments.
  • The Court clarified that Article 246A grants both Parliament and state legislatures simultaneous and equal power to legislate on matters of GST.
  • It emphasized that the GST Council is a "recommendatory body" and its recommendations have "persuasive value" only, aiming to foster federalism and administrative harmony.
  • The Court observed that the constitutional scheme, particularly Article 279A, envisages a collaborative dialogue between the Union and States, not a mandate.
• Implications: This judgment reinforced the principle of cooperative federalism, affirming the legislative sovereignty of both the Union and State legislatures in GST matters. While the Council's recommendations are generally followed due to the collaborative spirit, this ruling provides legal clarity that states are not legally bound to implement them.

Other Relevant Cases:

While not directly impacting the GST Council's foundational role, several other Supreme Court judgments have shaped GST implementation:

• VKC Footsteps GST Case Law (2021): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, allowing a refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) for inverted duty structure only on goods purchased and not on services received.
• Bharti Airtel Ltd. GST Case Law (2022): The Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court order, ruling against revising a filed GSTR-3B to claim ITC beyond the prescribed period, emphasizing rigid compliance with statutory time limits for ITC claims.
• Aberdare Technologies GST Case Law (2022): The Supreme Court allowed businesses to correct bona fide mistakes in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B to avoid denying ITC claims, providing relief against strict error rectification limits.

6. Contemporary Relevance & Challenges

The GST Council continues to be the most dynamic institution in India's indirect tax regime. It regularly meets to assess and refine GST laws, responding to economic needs and stakeholder concerns.

Recent Reforms and Debates (as of late 2024 - early 2025):

• Rate Rationalization: There is an ongoing push for "next-generation" GST reforms, anticipated by Diwali 2025 (October 2025), focusing on simplifying the tax structure.
  • Proposals aim to reduce the current seven-slab structure (0.25%, 3%, 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, and compensation cess) to broadly four slabs: a special rate (less than 1% for jewellery/precious metals), 5%, 18%, and a new 40% rate for "sin" goods (tobacco, alcohol).
  • This is expected to shift the majority of goods into the 5% and 18% slabs, potentially lowering the tax burden on common goods and easing compliance for MSMEs.
• Ease of Doing Business: Efforts include pre-filled GST returns, faster refunds, and smoother MSME registrations.
• Digitalization: The Council approved the roll-out of e-Invoicing and e-Way Bill systems to facilitate digital payments and promote self-reporting by businesses. The e-Invoicing threshold has been further reduced, making it mandatory for firms with an annual turnover of ₹5 crore or more for B2B supplies from August 1, 2023.
• Amnesty Schemes: Recent meetings (e.g., 52nd and 53rd) have recommended amnesty schemes for filing appeals against demand orders and waiving interest/penalties for certain past fiscal years, provided the full tax is paid by a specified date.
• GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT): The 49th meeting recommended the creation of GSTAT, with a Principal Bench in New Delhi and state benches, to expedite dispute resolution.

Challenges in India's Tax System Posed by the GST Regime:

Despite its achievements, the GST Council and the broader GST system face several persistent challenges:

1. Complexity of Tax Structure: Even with ongoing rationalization efforts, the multi-rate GST structure (0%, 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, and special rates) remains complex compared to global single-rate or dual-rate models. This complexity makes it harder for businesses, especially SMEs, to comply.
2. Frequent Changes in Rules and Rates: While flexibility is good, frequent changes in tax rates, exemptions, and procedural requirements have created a lack of stability, causing confusion among taxpayers and professionals.
3. Compliance Burden: The extensive compliance process under GST, requiring multiple return filings, poses a significant burden, particularly for small businesses and those in the unorganized sector. Technical glitches in the GST Network (GSTN) have further exacerbated these issues.
4. Revenue Concerns for States: The end of the five-year GST compensation guarantee in June 2022 has raised concerns among states about potential revenue losses, especially with proposed rate cuts. Many states are demanding a new support mechanism or extended compensation, often proposing a new levy on luxury and sin goods, with proceeds entirely passed to states. This highlights ongoing Centre-State fiscal disputes.
5. Technical Challenges: The GSTN, the technological backbone, has faced issues like slow servers, system crashes, and glitches, leading to delays and frustrations for taxpayers.
6. Coordination Between Centre and State Governments: While designed for cooperative federalism, disagreements on policy matters, particularly revenue sharing and the frequency of GST Council meetings, continue to be points of contention. States sometimes express dissatisfaction over infrequent meetings, making it difficult to voice urgent concerns.
7. Inverted Duty Structure: Though the Council has been working on it, inverted duty structures (where the tax on inputs is higher than on finished products) lead to accumulation of Input Tax Credit and operational difficulties for businesses.
8. Impact on Small Businesses: The compliance requirements and technicalities have increased operational costs for many small traders, making the transition from informal to formal systems challenging.
9. Anti-Profiteering Issues: Ensuring that tax reductions are passed on to consumers and not retained by businesses has been a continuous challenge, leading to the involvement of the CCI.

Diagram: Challenges Faced by the GST Council

graph TD
    A[GST Council Challenges] --> B{Complexity of Tax Structure};
    A --> C{Frequent Changes in Rules & Rates};
    A --> D{High Compliance Burden (especially SMEs)};
    A --> E{Revenue Concerns & Compensation for States};
    A --> F{Technical Glitches in GSTN};
    A --> G{Centre-State Coordination & Consensus};
    A --> H{Inverted Duty Structure};
    A --> I{Impact on Small Businesses};
    A --> J{Anti-Profiteering Enforcement};

7. Comparative Analysis: Indian Federalism and GST Council

India's GST model, with its unique GST Council, represents a sophisticated experiment in cooperative federalism that differs significantly from many other federal systems globally.

• U.S. Federalism (Decentralised): In the United States, taxation powers are highly decentralised. Both federal and state governments have independent powers to levy sales taxes, income taxes, etc., with minimal formal coordination mechanisms like a GST Council. This often leads to varied tax rates and regulations across states, which can complicate interstate commerce. The absence of a national consumption tax like GST means no single body dictates rates for goods and services across the entire country.
• Canadian Federalism (Centralised VAT with Provincial Sales Taxes): Canada has a federal GST and provincial sales taxes (PST), with some provinces harmonising their PST with the federal GST (Harmonised Sales Tax - HST). While there is coordination, it's largely through inter-governmental agreements rather than a constitutional body with weighted voting. The federal government often plays a more dominant role in setting the national GST.
• Australian Federalism (Single National GST): Australia has a single Goods and Services Tax administered by the federal government, with revenue then distributed to states based on recommendations from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. While states receive a share, they have limited direct say in setting the GST rate or exemptions in a dedicated constitutional forum.

Indian GST Council's Uniqueness:

The Indian model is distinct due to:

1. Constitutional Mandate: The GST Council is not merely a statutory body but a constitutionally mandated body (Article 279A), giving it immense legitimacy and authority.
2. Joint Sovereignty: Article 246A explicitly grants both the Union and states concurrent power to legislate on GST, necessitating a joint forum like the Council for policy-making. This embodies a "dialogue-driven federalism".
3. Weighted Voting: The unique 1/3 (Centre) and 2/3 (States) weighted voting structure, requiring a 3/4th majority, ensures that major decisions require significant buy-in from both the Centre and a super-majority of states. This prevents either party from unilaterally imposing decisions, fostering consensus and compromise.
4. Continuous Consultation: The Council provides a permanent platform for continuous consultation and negotiation, ensuring that diverse regional and state-specific concerns are addressed in national tax policy.

This cooperative framework, while complex, is essential for a large and diverse federal country like India, balancing central authority with state autonomy in fiscal matters.

8. Conclusion & Summary

The GST Council is a unique and powerful institution that epitomises India's cooperative federalism in the realm of indirect taxation. Born out of the need to harmonise a fragmented tax system, it has successfully established a unified national market and streamlined tax administration. While it has demonstrated flexibility in responding to challenges through frequent policy reviews and amendments, it continues to grapple with complexities related to rate rationalisation, compliance burden, and evolving Centre-State fiscal relations. The Supreme Court's pronouncement on the recommendatory nature of its decisions further reinforces the collaborative spirit required for its effective functioning. As India moves towards "next-generation" GST reforms, the Council's ability to forge consensus and adapt to new economic realities will be crucial for the continued success of the GST regime and the strengthening of India's fiscal federalism.

9. Practice Questions & Answers

✅ Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council was constituted under which Article of the Indian Constitution? a) Article 265 b) Article 279A c) Article 280 d) Article 301

Answer: b) Article 279A Explanation: Article 279A was inserted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016, specifically to establish the GST Council.

2. What is the voting weightage of the Central Government in the GST Council's decision-making process? a) One-half of the total votes b) Two-thirds of the total votes c) One-third of the total votes d) Three-fourths of the total votes

Answer: c) One-third of the total votes Explanation: As per Article 279A(4), the Central Government's vote has a weightage of one-third, while the combined votes of all State Governments have a weightage of two-thirds.

3. Which of the following is NOT a function of the GST Council? a) Recommending GST rates and exemptions. b) Formulating model GST laws. c) Appointing the Chief Justice of India. d) Recommending compensation to states for revenue loss (for a period).

Answer: c) Appointing the Chief Justice of India. Explanation: The GST Council's functions relate exclusively to Goods and Services Tax. Appointing the Chief Justice of India is a function of the President of India, guided by constitutional provisions related to the judiciary.

4. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022) primarily held that: a) The GST Council's recommendations are legally binding on the Centre and States. b) Only the Parliament has the power to legislate on GST matters. c) The GST Council's recommendations are only of persuasive value and not binding. d) States have absolute veto power over GST Council decisions.

Answer: c) The GST Council's recommendations are only of persuasive value and not binding. Explanation: This judgment clarified that due to the concurrent legislative powers under Article 246A, the GST Council's recommendations are persuasive, not mandatory, upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism.

5. Which Constitutional Amendment Act introduced the Goods and Services Tax and consequently established the GST Council? a) 99th Constitutional Amendment Act b) 100th Constitutional Amendment Act c) 101st Constitutional Amendment Act d) 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act

Answer: c) 101st Constitutional Amendment Act Explanation: The 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016, was instrumental in introducing GST in India and inserting Article 279A for the GST Council.

🔍 Scenario-Based Question

Scenario: A particular State Government expresses strong reservations about a proposed increase in GST rates on certain essential commodities, recommended by the GST Council. The State Finance Minister argues that such an increase would disproportionately affect the low-income population in their state and could lead to social unrest. The Centre, however, pushes for the rate hike, citing revenue imperatives.

Question: What are the constitutional options available to the State Government if it wishes to prevent the implementation of this rate hike, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Minerals case?

Answer:

The State Government has several options based on the principles of cooperative federalism and the Mohit Minerals judgment:

1. Voting in the GST Council: The most direct option is to vote against the proposal in the GST Council meeting. Given that the State Governments collectively hold two-thirds of the weighted votes, if enough states (including the dissenting one) vote against the proposal, it might not achieve the required three-fourths majority, and thus fail to pass the recommendation.
2. Persuasion and Dialogue: Engage in extensive dialogue and negotiation within the GST Council to present their concerns, propose alternative solutions (e.g., specific exemptions, targeted subsidies), and build a consensus against the proposed hike. The Council's emphasis is on consensus-building.
3. Refusal to Legislate (Post-Recommendation): Even if the GST Council's recommendation for the rate hike passes with the required majority, the Mohit Minerals judgment clarifies that these recommendations are not legally binding on individual states. Since Article 246A grants states concurrent power to legislate on GST, a state legislature could, theoretically, refuse to enact a state law (SGST Act amendment) to implement the recommended rate hike within its jurisdiction. This would, however, create a disparity in tax rates across states, potentially leading to market distortions and legal challenges, and would be a significant step that could strain Centre-State fiscal relations.
4. Judicial Challenge (Limited Scope): While direct challenge to a GST Council recommendation based solely on its "binding" nature might be complex post-Mohit Minerals, a state could potentially challenge the constitutional validity of a central law implementing the rate hike if it believes it infringes upon its legislative powers or other constitutional provisions, or if the process of recommendation was flawed. However, challenging the wisdom of a tax policy decision itself is generally difficult in courts.

The most practical and commonly used approach would be through the first two options, leveraging the deliberative and voting mechanisms within the GST Council to achieve a favorable outcome or a compromise.

🔄 Match-the-following Exercise

Match the following Constitutional Articles/Amendments with their primary provisions related to GST:

Answer:

1. 101st Constitutional Amendment Act - c. Replaced multiple indirect taxes with GST
2. Article 246A - b. Grants concurrent legislative power for GST
3. Article 279A - a. Establishes the Goods and Services Tax Council
4. Article 269A - d. Deals with levy and collection of IGST on inter-state supply

🧠 Diagram-based Reasoning

Observe the following flowchart illustrating the GST Council's decision-making process:

graph TD
    A[Issue/Proposal Introduced] --> B{Discussion & Deliberation among Members};
    B --> C{Attempt for Consensus};
    C -- No Consensus --> D{Vote if necessary};
    D --> E[Central Government Vote (1/3 weight)];
    D --> F[State Governments Votes (2/3 weight)];
    E & F --> G{Calculate Total Weighted Votes};
    G -- ≥ 3/4th Majority --> H[Decision Carried];
    G -- < 3/4th Majority --> I[Proposal Rejected];

Question: Based on the flowchart and your understanding of the GST Council, what would happen if the Central Government and a group of states representing 10% of the total weighted votes of all states vote in favor of a proposal, while the remaining states (representing 90% of state weighted votes) vote against it?

Answer:

Let's break down the weighted votes:

• Central Government's vote weightage = 1/3
• State Governments' total vote weightage = 2/3

If the Central Government votes in favor, it contributes 1/3 to the 'in favor' count.

Now consider the states:

• A group of states representing 10% of the total weighted votes of all states vote in favor. So, 10% of (2/3) = 0.10 * (2/3) = 0.2/3.
• The remaining states representing 90% of the total weighted votes of all states vote against.

Total weighted votes in favor = (Central Government's weight) + (Favorable states' weight) Total weighted votes in favor = 1/3 + 0.2/3 = 1.2/3

To carry a proposal, the total weighted votes in favor must be equal to or greater than three-fourths (3/4).

Let's convert 3/4 to a fraction with a denominator of 3 for easier comparison: 3/4 = (3 * (3/4)) / 3 = 2.25/3

Comparing the "in favor" votes with the required majority: 1.2/3 (in favor) is less than 2.25/3 (required majority).

Therefore, the proposal would be rejected (I). This illustrates how the weighted voting mechanism ensures that a proposal cannot pass without significant support from both the Centre and a substantial majority of the states.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE