Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified when applications open.
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.
In a landmark judgment on April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision in the Right to Education Act, 2009 that makes it mandatory for all schools (government and private) except private, unaided minority schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children belonging to “weaker section and disadvantaged group”. The verdict was given by a three-judge bench namely Justice S.H. Kapadia (CJI), Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan. However, the judgment was not unanimous. Justice Radhakrishnan gave a dissenting view to the majority judgment. According to news reports (here and here), some school associations are planning to file review petitions against the Supreme Court order (under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review any judgment or order made by it. A review petition may be filed if there is (a) discovery of new evidence, (b) an error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) any other sufficient reason). In this post, we summarise the views of the judges. Background of the petition The 86th (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution which makes it mandatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children from the age of six to 14 years (fundamental right). The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to give effect to this amendment. The Act provides that children between the ages of six and 14 years have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school. It also lays down the minimum norms that each school has to follow in order to get legal recognition. The Act required government schools to provide free and compulsory education to all admitted children. Similarly, aided schools have to provide free and compulsory education proportionate to the funding received, subject to a minimum of 25%. However, controversy erupted over Section 12(1)(c) and (2) of the Act, which required private, unaided schools to admit at least 25% of students from SCs, STs, low-income and other disadvantaged or weaker groups. The Act stated that these schools shall be reimbursed for either their tuition charge or the per-student expenditure in government schools, whichever is lower. After the Act was notified on April 1, 2010, the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this provision on the ground that it impinged on their right to run educational institutions without government interference. Summary of the judgment Majority The Act is constitutionally valid and shall apply to (a) government controlled schools, (b) aided schools (including minority administered schools), and (c) unaided, non-minority schools. The reasons are given below: First, Article 21A makes it obligatory on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between 6 and 14 years of age. However, the manner in which the obligation shall be discharged is left to the State to determine by law. Therefore, the State has the freedom to decide whether it shall fulfill its obligation through its own schools, aided schools or unaided schools. The 2009 Act is “child centric” and not “institution centric”. The main question was whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(g) which gives every citizen the right to practice a profession or carry out any occupation, trade or business. However, the Constitution provides that Article 19(1)(g) may be circumscribed by Article 19(6), which allow reasonable restriction over this right in the interest of the general public. The Court stated that since “education” is recognized as a charitable activity [see TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481] reasonable restriction may apply. Second, the Act places a burden on the State as well as parents/guardians to ensure that every child has the right to education. Thus, the right to education “envisages a reciprocal agreement between the State and the parents and it places an affirmative burden on all stakeholders in our civil society.” The private, unaided schools supplement the primary obligation of the State to provide for free and compulsory education to the specified category of students. Third, TMA Pai and P.A. Inamdar judgments hold that the right to establish and administer educational institutions fall within Article 19(1)(g). It includes right to admit students and set up reasonable fee structure. However, these principles were applied in the context of professional/higher education where merit and excellence have to be given due weightage. This does not apply to a child seeking admission in Class I. Also, Section 12(1)(c) of the Act seeks to remove financial obstacle. Therefore, the 2009 Act should be read with Article 19(6) which provides for reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g). However, the government should clarify the position with regard to boarding schools and orphanages. The Court also ruled that the 2009 Act shall not apply to unaided, minority schools since they are protected by Article 30(1) (all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice). This right of the minorities is not circumscribed by reasonable restriction as is the case under Article 19(1)(g). Dissenting judgment Article 21A casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The obligation is not on unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions. Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act can be operationalised only on the principles of voluntariness, autonomy and consensus for unaided schools and not on compulsion or threat of non-recognition. The reasons for such a judgment are given below: First, Article 21A says that the “State shall provide” not “provide for”. Therefore, the constitutional obligation is on the State and not on non-state actors to provide free and compulsory education to a specified category of children. Also, under Article 51A(k) of the Constitution, parents or guardians have a duty to provide opportunities for education to their children but not a constitutional obligation. Second, each citizen has the fundamental right to establish and run an educational institution “investing his own capital” under Article 19(1)(g). This right can be curtailed in the interest of the general public by imposing reasonable restrictions. Citizens do not have any constitutional obligation to start an educational institution. Therefore, according to judgments of TMA Pai and PA Inamdar, they do not have any constitutional obligation to share seats with the State or adhere to a fee structure determined by the State. Compelling them to do so would amount to nationalization of seats and would constitute serious infringement on the autonomy of the institutions. Rights guaranteed to the unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30(1) can only be curtailed through a constitutional amendment (for example, insertion of Article 15(5) that allows reservation of seats in private educational institutions). Third, no distinction can be drawn between unaided minority and non-minority schools with regard to appropriation of quota by the State. Other issues related to the 2009 Act Apart from the issue of reservation, the RTE Act raises other issues such as lack of accountability of government schools and lack of focus on learning outcomes even though a number of studies have pointed to low levels of learning among school children. (For a detailed analysis, please see PRS Brief on the Bill).
