1 FPM Scholar, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, A-32A, Sector 62, Noida - 201 309, Uttar Pradesh
2 Associate Professor , Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida, A-32A, Sector 62, Noida - 201 309, Uttar Pradesh
3 Assistant Manager, AI Department, Jaipuria Institute of Management, Indore, Madhya Pradesh
Purpose : This study focused on the effective mechanism of GST as per the views of practicing tax professionals on curbing the circulation of black money and tax evasion in India.
Design/Methodology/Approach : For this study, 47 tax professionals (chartered accountants, tax advocates, and company secretaries) were enrolled using purposive expert sampling. The researchers used a quantitative cross-sectional survey design to collect data in January and February 2025. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and independent variables were used in the data analysis.
Findings : The findings indicated that GST achieved only partial success in reducing black money. Real estate remained the most vulnerable sector (M = 3.77). Cash transactions and fake invoicing were the most common evasion methods, and they were correlated with shell companies (r = 0.722). Invoice matching, rated most effective (M = 3.75), showed alignment with e-way bills (r = 0.782). Portal glitches and input tax credit (ITC) errors were key compliance challenges. No significant group differences suggested perceptions reflected objective system performance.
Practical Implications : To harness the full anti-evasion potential of GST, targeted digital infrastructure, sector-specific property reforms, and integrated network analysis to detect collusion will be required.
Originality/Value : Studies have examined GST’s influence on black money in India. Among the first studies, four experts investigated the effects of GST on black money among tax experts using well-tested, well-recognized statistics.
Anuj Bansal, Vranda Jain, Gourab Chatterjee (2026). GST and Tax Evasion in India : Evidence from Practitioner Surveys. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 19(3), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2026/v19i3/175058