Ankit K U M A R Suryawanshi
My name is Ankit Kumar Suryawanshi, and I work in the Madhya Pradesh Department of Higher Education as an Assistant Professor (Economics) (MPDHE). Since 2019, I've been appointed to Government College, Naryawali Dist: Sagar. Prior to 2019, I was a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Economics at Devi Ahilya University (DAVV) in Indore, MP. DAVV is where I am pursuing my PhD in State Finances of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. I am particularly interested in research on public policy and economic development issues. I've been working hard to improve my research and analytical skills. I sincerely agree that social science research is critical to ensuring a better future.I am also a technical member and reviewer/evaluator on MPDHE's E-Content preparation committee. I've also received training from the Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) and the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research (NITTTR).
less
Uploads
Papers
mobilization from indirect taxes was far greater than that of direct taxes in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh both. The condition of direct tax
revenue mobilization was not at par in both states while having a comparatively better position than Madhya Pradesh. This can be attributed to the larger share of the service sector in MP’s economy and the lesser share of the same in CG’s economy. The revenue mobilized from indirect taxes was greater than 85 percent in both states, while Chhattisgarh had a comparatively greater share of the same in its own tax revenue than that of Madhya Pradesh. This can be attributed to a lesser share of the secondary sector in MP’s economy and a higher share of the same in CG’s economy. The gap between the share of direct and indirect taxes explains that these states are overly dependent on indirect tax revenue. Chhattisgarh was found to be a state highly dependent on its own resources for mobilizing revenues as an increase in the share funds transferred from the Centre in its GSDP was very nominal and insignificant. The compounded growth rate of tax and non-tax revenues was found to be significant in both states. The CAGR of Madhya Pradesh was superior in the case of Share in Centre tax and direct taxes only. While, Chhattisgarh was performing better in the case of overall own tax revenue (OTR), own non-tax revenue, and indirect taxes. Similarly, the response of tax revenue yields was found to be buoyant in both states while Madhya Pradesh had superior results to Chhattisgarh. Madhya Pradesh was found to be superior in absorbing tax revenues with increased GSDP.
mobilization from indirect taxes was far greater than that of direct taxes in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh both. The condition of direct tax
revenue mobilization was not at par in both states while having a comparatively better position than Madhya Pradesh. This can be attributed to the larger share of the service sector in MP’s economy and the lesser share of the same in CG’s economy. The revenue mobilized from indirect taxes was greater than 85 percent in both states, while Chhattisgarh had a comparatively greater share of the same in its own tax revenue than that of Madhya Pradesh. This can be attributed to a lesser share of the secondary sector in MP’s economy and a higher share of the same in CG’s economy. The gap between the share of direct and indirect taxes explains that these states are overly dependent on indirect tax revenue. Chhattisgarh was found to be a state highly dependent on its own resources for mobilizing revenues as an increase in the share funds transferred from the Centre in its GSDP was very nominal and insignificant. The compounded growth rate of tax and non-tax revenues was found to be significant in both states. The CAGR of Madhya Pradesh was superior in the case of Share in Centre tax and direct taxes only. While, Chhattisgarh was performing better in the case of overall own tax revenue (OTR), own non-tax revenue, and indirect taxes. Similarly, the response of tax revenue yields was found to be buoyant in both states while Madhya Pradesh had superior results to Chhattisgarh. Madhya Pradesh was found to be superior in absorbing tax revenues with increased GSDP.