The goods and service tax (GST) seems to have implemented the idea of 'one nation, one market, one tax'. But the dichotomy that prevails in its scheme of dual administration between the federal and provincial level retreats from its perceived motto of 'minimum government, maximum governance'. In fact, the resultant lapses in the system make a good case for bringing in the concept of 'one revenue administration' to complete the circuit. 

The concept of an integrated indirect tax regime under GST, transcending provincial boundaries, has evidently hit a critical roadblock, thanks to the jurisdictional limitations between the state and central set-up. Tax officials increasingly believe that such administrative disconnect, coupled with dual command, makes a fertile ground for fraudulent behaviour and rampant evasion to thrive. 

The recent rationalisation of the railway administration has been hailed across the board. Such amalgamation of various service units within the railways into a comprehensive integrated system is considered as decisive progress. A similar structural overhaul in the pan-India revenue set-up is overdue. It can only inject technocratic professionalism in tax administration. 

One emerging school of thinking portends to the formation of a unified command for the indirect tax regime - integrating central- and state-level revenue administration. The simplest way to do this would be to elevate the central Indian Revenue Service (IRS) - looking after central GST (CGST) and customs - from its present status of Central Civil Serviceto All India Service (AIS). Officers of the cadre will then stretch beyond their present federal domain to man the state-level revenue set-up as part of state cadres. And, contrary to popular apprehension, this will not, in any way, compromise state revenue autonomy. 

The scope of administering a single (GST) Act both at the Union and state levels, uniformity of the Act across states, coupled with a feeder service in the State Revenue Services, lay a strong foundation for the creation of a new AIS. 

Which brings one to a wider ambit of revamping a nation-wide, state-level tax administration. Several dedicated directorates are given to manage their respective tax domains. Take West Bengal. The Commercial Taxes Directorateexclusively monitors around 60% of the taxes for the state, comprising state GST, remnants of sales tax, agricultural income-tax, electricity duty, etc. The other two important tax contributors - state excise and stamp duty/registration fees - are administered by state-level revenue service officers under their respective directorates. 

So, in effect, the constituted state-level revenue service, even as it accounts for 91% of West Bengal's tax revenue, is not given the role of collector, which the district magistrate officiates, simply by dint of having sway over land revenue - a one-time behemoth for the exchequer from the British colonial era and presently languishing as a decaying residue that accounts for only 4% of the total kitty. 

The need for a thorough makeover of such revenue formation is to be viewed in this context. It has become necessary to free the contemporary concept of revenue administration from its colonial-era trappings and impart the desired finesse of a technocratic mould, akin to the developed world that sees revenue as an important fulcrum for statecraft, alongside magistracy and law and order. 

The conjoint role of magistracy and revenue at the district level in India has been left with the collector for far too long. The world has moved ahead a long time ago. It's time to take revenue out of the domain of general bureaucracy, particularly at a time when the dominance of indirect tax and its rising interface with trade, commerce and industry call for high levels of domain expertise and a specific set of technical skills. 

Taking the judicial role out of magistracy, following the constitutional mandate of Article 50 that enacted the separation of the judiciary from the executive, was a defining moment for strengthening democratic institutions. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, which reallocated the preventive and punitive justice system between the executive and judicial magistracy, reinforced both institutions. Similarly, the separation of revenue from general bureaucracy can fortify both these vital handles of governance. 

General administration would then be allowed to focus more on developmental activities, public service delivery and magisterial function, leaving the management of a dynamic world of revenue to a specialised hand. It will certainly be in keeping with the universal global practice of specialising towards superior performance.