Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified. Last date for submitting the applications is December 21, 2024.
In the past few months, retail prices of petrol and diesel have consistently increased to all-time high levels. On October 16, 2021, the retail price of petrol in Delhi was Rs 105.5 per litre, and that of diesel was Rs 94.2 per litre. In Mumbai, these prices were even higher at Rs 111.7 per litre and Rs 102.5 per litre, respectively.
The difference in fuel retail prices in the two cities is due to the different tax rates levied by the respective state governments on the same products. In this blog post, we look at the tax components in the price structure of petrol and diesel, the variation in these across states, and the major changes in taxation of these products in the recent years. We also discuss changes in the retail prices over the past few years and how it compares vis-à-vis the global crude oil prices.
Taxes make up around 50% of the retail price
Public sector Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) revise the retail prices of petrol and diesel in India on a daily basis, according to changes in the price of global crude oil. The price charged to dealers includes the base price set by OMCs and the freight price. As on October 16, 2021, the price charged to dealers makes up 42% of the retail price in the case of petrol, and 49% of the retail price in the case of diesel (Table 1).
The break-up of retail prices of petrol and diesel in Delhi (as on October 16, 2021), shows that around 54% of the retail price of petrol comprises central and states taxes. In the case of diesel, this is close to 49%. The central government taxes the production of petroleum products, while states tax their sale. The central government levies an excise duty of Rs 32.9 per litre on petrol and Rs 31.8 per litre on diesel. These make up 31% and 34% of the current retail prices of petrol and diesel, respectively.
Table 1: Break-up of petrol and diesel retail prices in Delhi (as on October 16, 2021)
Component |
Petrol |
Diesel |
||
Rs/litre |
% of retail price |
Rs/litre |
% of retail price |
|
Price Charged to Dealers |
44.4 |
42% |
46.0 |
49% |
Excise Duty (levied by centre) |
32.9 |
31% |
31.8 |
34% |
Dealer Commission (average) |
3.9 |
4% |
2.6 |
3% |
Sales Tax/ VAT (levied by state) |
24.3 |
23% |
13.8 |
15% |
Retail Price |
105.5 |
100% |
94.2 |
100% |
Note: Delhi levies 30% VAT on petrol and 16.75% VAT on diesel.
Sources: Indian Oil Corporation Limited; PRS.
While excise duty rates are uniform across the country, states levy sales tax/ Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies across states. For instance, Odisha levies 32% VAT on petrol, while Uttar Pradesh levies 26.8% VAT or Rs 18.74 per litre, whichever is higher. Refer to the table 3 in annexure for sales taxes/VAT levied across the country. The figure below shows the different tax rates levied by states on petrol and diesel. In addition to the tax rates shown in the graph, many state governments, such as Tamil Nadu, also levy certain additional levies such as cess (Rs 11.5 per litre).
Figure 1: Sales tax/VAT rates levied by states on petrol and diesel (as on October 1, 2021)
Note: The rates shown for Maharashtra are averages of the rates levied in the Mumbai-Thane region and in the rest of the state. Only percentages are being shown in this graph.
Sources: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; PRS.
Note that unlike excise duty, sales tax is an ad valorem tax, i.e., it does not have a fixed value, and is charged as a percentage of the price of the product. This implies that while the value of excise duty component of the price structure is fixed, the value of the sales tax component is dependent on the other three components, i.e., price charged to dealers, dealer commission, and excise duty.
Retail prices in India compared to global crude oil price
India’s dependence on imports for consumption of petroleum products has increased over the years. For instance, in 1998-99, net imports of petroleum products were 69% of the total consumption, which increased to around 95% in 2020-21. Because of a large share of imports in the domestic consumption, any change in the global price of crude oil has a significant impact on the domestic prices of petroleum products. The two figures below show the trend in the price of global crude oil and retail prices of petrol and diesel in India, over the last nine years.
Figure 2: Trend of the global crude oil price vis-à-vis retail prices of petrol and diesel (in Delhi)
Note: Global Crude Oil Price is for the Indian basket. Petrol and diesel retail prices are for Delhi. Figures reflect average monthly price.
Sources: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; PRS.
Between June 2014 and October 2018, the retail selling prices did not adhere to change in global crude oil prices. The global prices fell sharply between June 2014 and January 2016, and then subsequently increased between February 2016 and October 2018. However, the retail selling prices remained stable during the entire period. This disparity in the change in global and Indian retail prices was because of the subsequent changes in taxes. For instance, central taxes were increased by Rs 11 and 13 between June 2014 and January 2016 on petrol and diesel respectively. Subsequently, taxes were decreased by four rupees between February 2016 and October 2018 for petrol and diesel. Similarly, during January-April 2020, following a sharp decline of 69% in the global crude oil prices, the central government increased the excise duty on petrol and diesel by Rs 10 per litre and Rs 13 per litre, respectively in May 2020.
Sharp increase in excise duty collections
As a result of the increase in excise duty in May 2020, the excise duty collection increased sharply from Rs 2.38 lakh crore in 2019-20 to Rs 3.84 lakh crore in 2020-21. The year-on-year growth rate of excise duty collection increased from 4% in 2019-20 to 67% in 2020-21. However, sales tax collections (from petroleum products) during that period remained more or less constant (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Excise duty and sales tax/ VAT collection from petroleum products (in Rs lakh crore)
Note: The excise duty component in the figure includes cess on crude oil.
Sources: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; PRS.
Share of states in excise duty has decreased over the years
Though central taxes (such as excise duty) are levied by the centre, it has only 59% of the revenue from these taxes. The remaining 41% of the revenue is required to be devolved to the state governments as per the recommendations of the 15th Finance Commission. These devolved taxes are un-tied in nature, states can spend them according to their own discretion. The excise duty levied on petrol and diesel consists of two broad components: (i) tax component (i.e., basic excise duty), and (ii) cess and surcharge component. Of this, only the revenue generated from the tax component is devolved to states. Revenue generated by the centre from any cess or surcharge is not devolved to states. Currently, the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess, and the Road and Infrastructure Cess are levied on the sale of petrol and diesel in addition to the surcharge.
In the Union Budget 2021-22, the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development cess on petrol and diesel was announced at Rs 2.5 per litre and Rs 4 per litre, respectively. However, simultaneously, the basic excise duty and surcharge were reduced by equal amounts, so that the overall rate remains the same. Essentially, this provision shifted a revenue of Rs 1.5 per litre of petrol and Rs 3 per litre of diesel from the states’ divisible pool of taxes to the cess and surcharge revenue, which is entirely with the centre. Similarly, over the last four years, the share of tax component in the excise duty has decreased by 40% in petrol and 59% in diesel (table 2). At present, majority of the excise duty levied on petrol (96%) and diesel (94%) is in the form of cess and surcharge, due to which it is entirely under the centre’s share (Table 2).
Table 2: Break up of excise duty (Rs per litre)
Excise duty |
Petrol |
Diesel |
||||||
Apr-17 |
% share of total |
Feb-21 |
% share |
Apr-17 |
% share of total |
Feb-21 |
% share |
|
Tax (devolved to states) |
9.48 |
44% |
1.4 |
4% |
11.33 |
65% |
1.8 |
6% |
Cess and surcharge (centre) |
12 |
56% |
31.5 |
96% |
6 |
35% |
30 |
94% |
Total |
21.48 |
100% |
32.9 |
100% |
17.33 |
100% |
31.8 |
100% |
Sources: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; PRS
As a result, the devolution to states out of the excise duty has declined over the last four years. Even though the excise duty collections have increased sharply between 2019-20 and 2020-21, the devolved component has declined from Rs 26,464 to Rs 19,578 (revised estimate) in the same period.
Annexure
Table 3: Sales taxes/VAT rates levied on petrol and diesel across states (as on October 1, 2021)
State/UT |
Petrol |
Diesel |
Andaman & Nicobar Islands |
6% |
6% |
Andhra Pradesh |
31% VAT + Rs.4/litre VAT+Rs.1/litre Road Development Cess an d Vat thereon |
22.25% VAT + Rs.4/litre VAT+Rs.1/litre Road Development Cess and Vat thereon |
Arunachal Pradesh |
20% |
13% |
Assam |
32.66% or Rs.22.63 per litre whichever is higher as VAT minus Rebate of Rs.5 per Litre |
23.66% or Rs.17.45 per litre whichever is higher as VAT minus Rebate of Rs.5 per Litre |
Bihar |
26% or Rs 16.65/Litre whichever is higher (30% Surcharge on VAT as irrecoverable tax) |
19% or Rs 12.33/Litre whichever is higher (30% Surcharge on VAT as irrecoverable tax) |
Chandigarh |
Rs.10/KL cess +22.45% or Rs.12.58/Litre whichever is higher |
Rs.10/KL cess + 14.02% or Rs.7.63/Litre whichever is higher |
Chhattisgarh |
25% VAT + Rs.2/litre VAT |
25% VAT + Rs.1/litre VAT |
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu |
20% VAT |
20% VAT |
Delhi |
30% VAT |
Rs.250/KL air ambience charges + 16.75% VAT |
Goa |
27% VAT + 0.5% Green cess |
23% VAT + 0.5% Green cess |
Gujarat |
20.1% VAT+ 4% Cess on Town Rate & VAT |
20.2% VAT + 4 % Cess on Town Rate & VAT |
Haryana |
25% or Rs.15.62/litre whichever is higher as VAT+5% additional tax on VAT |
16.40% VAT or Rs.10.08/litre whichever is higher as VAT+5% additional tax on VAT |
Himachal Pradesh |
25% or Rs 15.50/Litre- whichever is higher |
14% or Rs 9.00/Litre- whichever is higher |
Jammu & Kashmir |
24% MST+ Rs.5/Litre employment cess, Reduction of Rs.0.50/Litre |
16% MST+ Rs.1.50/Litre employment cess |
Jharkhand |
22% on the sale price or Rs. 17.00 per litre , which ever is higher + Cess of Rs 1.00 per Ltr |
22% on the sale price or Rs. 12.50 per litre , which ever is higher + Cess of Rs 1.00 per Ltr |
Karnataka |
35% sales tax |
24% sales tax |
Kerala |
30.08% sales tax+ Rs.1/litre additional sales tax + 1% cess |
22.76% sales tax+ Rs.1/litre additional sales tax + 1% cess |
Ladakh |
24% MST+ Rs.5/Litre employment cess, Reduction of Rs.2.5/Litre |
16% MST+ Rs.1/Litre employment cess , Reduction of Rs.0.50/Litre |
Lakshadweep |
Nil |
Nil |
Madhya Pradesh |
33 % VAT + Rs.4.5/litre VAT+1%Cess |
23% VAT+ Rs.3/litre VAT+1% Cess |
Maharashtra – Mumbai, Thane , Navi Mumbai, Amravati & Aurangabad |
26% VAT+ Rs.10.12/Litre additional tax |
24% VAT+ Rs.3.00/Litre additional tax |
Maharashtra (Rest of State) |
25% VAT+ Rs.10.12/Litre additional tax |
21% VAT+ Rs.3.00/Litre additional tax |
Manipur |
32% VAT |
18% VAT |
Meghalaya |
20% or Rs15.00/Litre- whichever is higher (Rs.0.10/Litre pollution surcharge) |
12% or Rs9.00/Litre- whichever is higher (Rs.0.10/Litre pollution surcharge) |
Mizoram |
25% VAT |
14.5% VAT |
Nagaland |
25% VAT or Rs. 16.04/litre whichever is higher +5% surcharge + Rs.2.00/Litre as road maintenance cess |
16.50% VAT or Rs. 10.51/litre whichever is higher +5% surcharge + Rs.2.00/Litre as road maintenance cess |
Odisha |
32% VAT |
28% VAT |
Puducherry |
23% VAT |
17.75% VAT |
Punjab |
Rs.2050/KL (cess)+ Rs.0.10 per Litre (Urban Transport Fund) + 0.25 per Litre (Special Infrastructure Development Fee)+24.79% VAT+10% additional tax on VAT |
Rs.1050/KL (cess) + Rs.0.10 per Litre (Urban Transport Fund) +0.25 per Litre (Special Infrastructure Development Fee) + 15.94% VAT+10% additional tax on VAT |
Rajasthan |
36% VAT+Rs 1500/KL road development cess |
26% VAT+ Rs.1750/KL road development cess |
Sikkim |
25.25% VAT+ Rs.3000/KL cess |
14.75% VAT + Rs.2500/KL cess |
Tamil Nadu |
13% + Rs.11.52 per litre |
11% + Rs.9.62 per litre |
Telangana |
35.20% VAT |
27% VAT |
Tripura |
25% VAT+ 3% Tripura Road Development Cess |
16.50% VAT+ 3% Tripura Road Development Cess |
Uttar Pradesh |
26.80% or Rs 18.74/Litre whichever is higher |
17.48% or Rs 10.41/Litre whichever is higher |
Uttarakhand |
25% or Rs 19 Per Ltr whichever is greater |
17.48% or Rs Rs 10.41 Per Ltr whichever is greater |
West Bengal |
25% or Rs.13.12/litre whichever is higher as sales tax+ Rs.1000/KL cess – Rs 1000/KL sales tax rebate (20% Additional tax on VAT as irrecoverable tax) |
17% or Rs.7.70/litre whichever is higher as sales tax + Rs 1000/KL cess – Rs 1000/KL sales tax rebate (20% Additional tax on VAT as irrecoverable tax) |
Sources: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; PRS.
The percentage of the population living below the poverty line in India decreased to 22% in 2011-12 from 37% in 2004-05, according to data released by the Planning Commission in July 2013. This blog presents data on recent poverty estimates and goes on to provide a brief history of poverty estimation in the country. National and state-wise poverty estimates The Planning Commission estimates levels of poverty in the country on the basis of consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
The current methodology for poverty estimation is based on the recommendations of an Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (Tendulkar Committee) established in 2005. The Committee calculated poverty levels for the year 2004- 05. Poverty levels for subsequent years were calculated on the basis of the same methodology, after adjusting for the difference in prices due to inflation. Table 1 shows national poverty levels for the last twenty years, using methodology suggested by the Tendulkar Committee. According to these estimates, poverty declined at an average rate of 0.74 percentage points per year between 1993-94 and 2004-05, and at 2.18 percentage points per year between 2004-05 and 2011-12. Table 1: National poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (1993 - 2012)
Year |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
1993 – 94 |
50.1 |
31.8 |
45.3 |
2004 – 05 |
41.8 |
25.7 |
37.2 |
2009 – 10 |
33.8 |
20.9 |
29.8 |
2011 – 12 |
25.7 |
13.7 |
21.9 |
Source: Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; PRS. State-wise data is also released by the NSSO. Table 2 shows state-wise poverty estimates for 2004-05 and 2011-12. It shows that while there is a decrease in poverty for almost all states, there are wide inter-state disparities in the percentage of poor below the poverty line and the rate at which poverty levels are declining. Table 2: State-wise poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (2004-05, 2011-12)
State |
2004-05 |
2011-12 |
Decrease |
Andhra Pradesh |
29.9 |
9.2 |
20.7 |
Arunachal Pradesh |
31.1 |
34.7 |
-3.6 |
Assam |
34.4 |
32 |
2.4 |
Bihar |
54.4 |
33.7 |
20.7 |
Chhattisgarh |
49.4 |
39.9 |
9.5 |
Delhi |
13.1 |
9.9 |
3.2 |
Goa |
25 |
5.1 |
19.9 |
Gujarat |
31.8 |
16.6 |
15.2 |
Haryana |
24.1 |
11.2 |
12.9 |
Himachal Pradesh |
22.9 |
8.1 |
14.8 |
Jammu and Kashmir |
13.2 |
10.4 |
2.8 |
Jharkhand |
45.3 |
37 |
8.3 |
Karnataka |
33.4 |
20.9 |
12.5 |
Kerala |
19.7 |
7.1 |
12.6 |
Madhya Pradesh |
48.6 |
31.7 |
16.9 |
Maharashtra |
38.1 |
17.4 |
20.7 |
Manipur |
38 |
36.9 |
1.1 |
Meghalaya |
16.1 |
11.9 |
4.2 |
Mizoram |
15.3 |
20.4 |
-5.1 |
Nagaland |
9 |
18.9 |
-9.9 |
Odisha |
57.2 |
32.6 |
24.6 |
Puducherry |
14.1 |
9.7 |
4.4 |
Punjab |
20.9 |
8.3 |
12.6 |
Rajasthan |
34.4 |
14.7 |
19.7 |
Sikkim |
31.1 |
8.2 |
22.9 |
Tamil Nadu |
28.9 |
11.3 |
17.6 |
Tripura |
40.6 |
14.1 |
26.5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
40.9 |
29.4 |
11.5 |
Uttarakhand |
32.7 |
11.3 |
21.4 |
West Bengal |
34.3 |
20 |
14.3 |
All Inda |
37.2 |
21.9 |
15.3 |
Source: Review of Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission, Government of India; Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12 (2013) Planning Commission, Government of India; PRS. Note: A negative sign before the number in column four (decrease) indicates an increase in percentage of population below the poverty line. History of poverty estimation in India Pre independence poverty estimates: One of the earliest estimations of poverty was done by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book, ‘Poverty and the Un-British Rule in India’. He formulated a poverty line ranging from Rs 16 to Rs 35 per capita per year, based on 1867-68 prices. The poverty line proposed by him was based on the cost of a subsistence diet consisting of ‘rice or flour, dhal, mutton, vegetables, ghee, vegetable oil and salt’. Next, in 1938, the National Planning Committee (NPC) estimated a poverty line ranging from Rs 15 to Rs 20 per capita per month. Like the earlier method, the NPC also formulated its poverty line based on ‘a minimum standard of living perspective in which nutritional requirements are implicit’. In 1944, the authors of the ‘Bombay Plan’ (Thakurdas et al 1944) suggested a poverty line of Rs 75 per capita per year. Post independence poverty estimates: In 1962, the Planning Commission constituted a working group to estimate poverty nationally, and it formulated separate poverty lines for rural and urban areas – of Rs 20 and Rs 25 per capita per year respectively. VM Dandekar and N Rath made the first systematic assessment of poverty in India in 1971, based on National Sample Survey (NSS) data from 1960-61. They argued that the poverty line must be derived from the expenditure that was adequate to provide 2250 calories per day in both rural and urban areas. This generated debate on minimum calorie consumption norms while estimating poverty and variations in these norms based on age and sex. Alagh Committee (1979): In 1979, a task force constituted by the Planning Commission for the purpose of poverty estimation, chaired by YK Alagh, constructed a poverty line for rural and urban areas on the basis of nutritional requirements. Table 3 shows the nutritional requirements and related consumption expenditure based on 1973-74 price levels recommended by the task force. Poverty estimates for subsequent years were to be calculated by adjusting the price level for inflation. Table 3: Minimum calorie consumption and per capita consumption expenditure as per the 1979 Planning Commission task force on poverty estimation
Area | Calories | Minimum consumption expenditure (Rs per capita per month) |
Rural | 2400 | 49.1 |
Urban | 2100 | 56.7 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; PRS Lakdawala Committee (1993): In 1993, an expert group constituted to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by DT Lakdawala, made the following suggestions: (i) consumption expenditure should be calculated based on calorie consumption as earlier; (ii) state specific poverty lines should be constructed and these should be updated using the Consumer Price Index of Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) in urban areas and Consumer Price Index of Agricultural Labour (CPI-AL) in rural areas; and (iii) discontinuation of ‘scaling’ of poverty estimates based on National Accounts Statistics. This assumes that the basket of goods and services used to calculate CPI-IW and CPI-AL reflect the consumption patterns of the poor. Tendulkar Committee (2009): In 2005, another expert group to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by Suresh Tendulkar, was constituted by the Planning Commission to address the following three shortcomings of the previous methods: (i) consumption patterns were linked to the 1973-74 poverty line baskets (PLBs) of goods and services, whereas there were significant changes in the consumption patterns of the poor since that time, which were not reflected in the poverty estimates; (ii) there were issues with the adjustment of prices for inflation, both spatially (across regions) and temporally (across time); and (iii) earlier poverty lines assumed that health and education would be provided by the State and formulated poverty lines accordingly.[1] It recommended four major changes: (i) a shift away from calorie consumption based poverty estimation; (ii) a uniform poverty line basket (PLB) across rural and urban India; (iii) a change in the price adjustment procedure to correct spatial and temporal issues with price adjustment; and (iv) incorporation of private expenditure on health and education while estimating poverty. The Committee recommended using Mixed Reference Period (MRP) based estimates, as opposed to Uniform Reference Period (URP) based estimates that were used in earlier methods for estimating poverty.[2] It based its calculations on the consumption of the following items: cereal, pulses, milk, edible oil, non-vegetarian items, vegetables, fresh fruits, dry fruits, sugar, salt & spices, other food, intoxicants, fuel, clothing, footwear, education, medical (non-institutional and institutional), entertainment, personal & toilet goods, other goods, other services and durables. The Committee computed new poverty lines for rural and urban areas of each state. To do this, it used data on value and quantity consumed of the items mentioned above by the population that was classified as poor by the previous urban poverty line. It concluded that the all India poverty line was Rs 446.68 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs 578.80 per capita per month in urban areas in 2004-05. The following table outlines the manner in which the percentage of population below the poverty line changed after the application of the Tendulkar Committee’s methodology. Table 4: Percentage of population below poverty line calculated by the Lakdawala Committee and the Tendulkar Committee for the year 2004-05
Committee |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
Lakdawala Committee |
28.3 |
25.7 |
27.5 |
Tendulkar Committee |
41.8 |
27.5 |
37.2 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty, 2009, Planning Commission; PRS The Committee also recommended a new method of updating poverty lines, adjusting for changes in prices and patterns of consumption, using the consumption basket of people close to the poverty line. Thus, the estimates released in 2009-10 and 2011-12 use this method instead of using indices derived from the CPI-AL for rural areas and CPI-IW for urban areas as was done earlier. Table 5 outlines the poverty lines computed using the Tendulkar Committee methodology for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12. Table 5: National poverty lines (in Rs per capita per month) for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12
Year |
Rural |
Urban |
2004-05 |
446.7 |
578.8 |
2009-10 |
672.8 |
859.6 |
2011-12 |
816.0 |
1000.0 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; Poverty Estimates 2009-10 and Poverty Estimates 2011-12, Planning Commission; PRS Rangarajan Committee: In 2012, the Planning Commission constituted a new expert panel on poverty estimation, chaired by C Rangarajan with the following key objectives: (i) to provide an alternate method to estimate poverty levels and examine whether poverty lines should be fixed solely in terms of a consumption basket or if other criteria are also relevant; (ii) to examine divergence between the consumption estimates based on the NSSO methodology and those emerging from the National Accounts aggregates; (iii) to review international poverty estimation methods and indicate whether based on these, a particular method for empirical poverty estimation can be developed in India, and (iv) to recommend how these estimates of poverty can be linked to eligibility and entitlements under the various schemes of the Government of India. The Committee is expected to submit its report by 2014.
[1] While private expenditure on education and health was covered in the base year 1973-74, no account was taken of either the increase in the proportion of these in total expenditure over time or of their proper representation in available price indices.
[2] Under the URP method, respondents are asked to detail consumption over the previous 30 days; whereas under the MRP method five low-frequency items (clothing, footwear, durables, education and institutional health expenditure) are surveyed over the previous 365 days, and all other items over the previous 30 days.