Resolution No Resolution Adopting Proposed Tax Levy For: Fill & Download for Free

Firstly, I guess I want to start off by saying that, I think it’s kind of unfortunate that American loyalists aren’t exactly covered adequately in American history, whenever it’s taught. And what little content about them there is on the American educational curriculum tends to be woefully one sided, incomplete, unfair, or even disparaging.Walk into any American middle or high school history classroom and there will be a lot of talk about the USA’s founding fathers, their activities, their motivations, and the war of independence they so valiantly fought for. Which is all well and good. Except that this approach risks giving an arguably restrictive, biased, and incomplete view of actual history. Which is a shame, given that approximately 1 out of every 3 colonists remained loyal to the crown in 1775. And yet most American history classes barely even cover (or attempt to understand) such a large section of the population of the colonies at the time.It’s just all about how Star-Spangled awesome everyone in this room was.Seriously, sometimes the content in subjects like American History pertaining to the Revolution and War of Independence (as taught in schools in the US). Can seem like they come straight out of China’s own patriotic education curriculum about our own civil war(s) and revolution(s).Additionally, it probably doesn’t help that American pop culture on loyalists isn’t exactly accurate or balanced either.You either get a turncoat like Benedict Arnold whose name is basically synonymous with treason.Or that one dude in Mel Gibson’s Patriot who is lazily depicted as nothing other than a gullible church-burning fascist sell-out, who’s busy galavanting around terrorising his fellow colonists, and doing war crimes and grunt work for his British mastersThe movie literally lends more time to developing the character of the French officer who joins with Mel Gibson’s militia than the ONE sole loyalist depicted in the entire film.And the result of this approach is made evident in this very question I aim to answer. The OP, who I assume is an American is quite naturally puzzled if this is all he has been taught.Well first off, who were the American Loyalists, and what is ‘Loyalism’ anyway?Loyalists were merely those amongst the colonists who didn’t want to seek independence from the British Crown, recognised King George III as their sovereign monarch, and the legitimate head of state in the colonies. And also those that wished to preserve (what they perceived as) the age-old institutional ties of political friendship, amity, language, trade, commerce, religion, and kindred blood that had existed between the United Kingdom and her colonists in the new world for centuries. Ties and institutions which they felt were under threat by the rebels and revolutionaries of the colonies.The modern American psyche makes the mistake of viewing the Loyalist perspective as alien, strange, foreign, and even traitorous. When in reality, it was the patriot rebels that were the real social mavericks and pariahs. We’re talking about men who were charged with treason and rebellion against the established order. After all, overthrowing a king and establishing an independent republic was truly an exciting and new revolutionary idea at the time. Loyalism was the main paradigm, and the default of quite a large number of colonists both during and prior to the War of Independence.Diverse Loyalist views on “Taxation Without Representation”With regards to Loyalist positions on “taxation without representation”, there was a rather diverse spectrum. For example, some loyalists were merely content with paying the new taxes levied by the crown (most of which were not enforced anyway — The infamous tax on tea was the ONLY one the British authorities really intended to implement).Other loyalists might have simply accepted the British government’s retort to rebel cries of “No taxation without representation” through the rather dubious ‘virtual representation’ argument. Which states that, because members of parliament represent the collective interests of the subjects of the nation of Great Britain and her empire. And that American colonists were all British subjects anyway, that therefore means that they were “technically already represented in Parliament”. Which is basically fallacious sophistry if we look at such reasoning by the modern democratic conventions of our day, but ultimately a legitimate (but not necessarily uncontroversial) defence at the time. Nonetheless, many loyalists probably bought into it, and either willingly or begrudgingly handed over their dues.However, there were also other loyalists who were against taxation without representation. These loyalists rejected the official British justification of “virtual representation” and the new taxes, and yet still remained loyal to the crown. For example, Maryland-born American loyalist, lawyer, and politician, Daniel Dulany the Younger published a pamphlet (Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies) expressing his disagreement with the taxes and the inadequacies of the current parliamentary system, which he also felt denied practical representation to the colonies.“…The advocates for the Stamp Act admit, in express terms, that “the colonies do not choose members of Parliament,” but they assert that “the colonies are virtually represented in the same manner with the non-electors resident in Great-Britain…“…Now, this argument, which is all that their invention hath been able to supply, is totally defective; for, it consists of facts not true, and of conclusions inadmissible…”— Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies, circa. 1765Though his literary attack on the British position was damning, and though he had voiced his opposition to the proposed taxes. Given that they had been imposed without colonial representation in parliament. Dulany, nonetheless discouraged revolt and rebellion against the crown. Instead advocating for a more restrained non-violent approach, where concerned and agitated colonists would continue to lobby their greivances, and seek out allies/advocates in the British parliament until a satisfactory settlement was reached. Which was a completely viable option too. Given that in spite of, vested British parliamentary interests to deny the colonists practical representation. There were nearly just as many British parliamentarians sympathetic to the protests of the colonists (most notably William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham), as there were those who remained dismissive to them.“There may be a time when redress may not be obtained. Till then, I shall recommend a legal, orderly, and prudent resentment…— Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies, circa. 1765Even as tempers flared and tensions grew ever more acute, Dulany retained his loyalty to both King and country. Refusing to side with the rebel cause when armed conflict finally broke out. It is doubtless, that there were others who thought and acted in the same vein.The diversity of American Loyalism and LoyalistsEven beyond the diversity of Loyalist opinions on the issue of taxation without representation, loyalists also held diverse motives in general for retaining their loyalties to the crown.Some simply had stronger familial and commercial ties to Britain and the rest of the empire.Others simply feared change due to politically conservative leanings and sensibilities.Others were sticklers for law and discipline, believing parliament’s rulings to be legitimate, and despising the potential for rebel mob rule, violence, and unrest.And others like Dulany simply wished to achieve a non-violent resolution, without the interference of rebel agitation or armed rebellion.So in sum, you had a huge bulk of the primarily wealthy, well-established, religiously Anglican, landed, well-educated, and conservative white population who remained loyal.People like…William Franklin - 13th and last Colonial Governor of New Jersey. And of course, the illegitimate loyalist son of American founding father, Benjamin “look at my kite and key” Franklin. Differing radically from his father’s patriot politics. William adopted an intensely anglophile outlook on American affairs, with his personal Anglican-Christian faith doing much to reinforce such leanings. After the British capitulation at Yorktown, he left for Britain never to return to America again.James De Lancey - a Loyalist military commander from a well-off and established family of colonial administrators in New York. De Lancey's Brigade, a provincial loyalist and pro-British military unit (aka. the “Cowboys”) struck fear into fighting rebel “Patriot” men in and around New York. After Yorktown, De Lancey was compensated by the British government for his service and given land in Nova Scotia, Canada.Elizabeth Lichtenstein Johnston - whose book (Recollections of a Georgia Loyalist) espoused Loyalist views, as she recounted the events and happenings growing up over the course of the American Revolutionary War from a Loyalist perspective. Reflecting her family’s background of extensive commercial and ancestral ties to the old world. After the war, Johnston’s family assets were seized by the new patriot government, forcing her household to emigrate to Nova Scotia, Canada.However, It’s also important to realise that loyalism was NOT merely just a viewpoint held exclusively by rich white men and women (or White.Anglo.Saxon.Protestants) with ties to the establishment or Britain. A common loyalist stereotype peddled in American history classes.Rather, loyalists came from just about every race, every religion, and walk of life in the colonies.Among other whites there were migrant Huguenot (French Protestants) and Dutch communities who remained loyal and supportive of the British crown. Often providing their able-bodied men to oppose the Continental Army. While colonists in the “middle colonies”, particularly tenant farmers in New York, also tended to espouse Loyalist views and assist the British during the war. On the other hand, you also had Quaker and German communities in Pennsylvania who took a position of initial neutrality as fence-sitters, and had wished to avoid any violence. However, when pressed by patriot rebels to declare their allegiances, they sided with the crown. Lastly, as an outlier in the Southern Colonies (which were mostly dominated by support for and control by patriot rebels), the Highland Scots of the Carolinas pledged their fealty to King George III rather than the Patriot cause.Loyalist volunteers and British troops engaging patriot rebel counterparts at the Battle of Long Island, circa. 27th of August, 1776Then there were people like David George, an African-American man born into slavery. Who, like many other enslaved blacks in the colonies at the time, had no love or affection for his rebelling white masters, who were now rising in revolt against the crown. So when several British governors and military commanders reached out to the enslaved black population in the Southern Colonies, offering them their freedom in return for military service (Most notably in ‘Dunmore’s Proclamation’) many, including David George, jumped at the opportunity for liberation, and took up arms against their former patriot rebel masters.In fact, escaped slaves from both New England and the Southern colonies would make their way to British controlled New York just to enlist. This frightened many slave-owning Patriot rebels (including some of America’s founding fathers) who in turn issued their own proclamations.“…And I do hereby further declare all indentured Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining his Majesty's Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to his Majesty's Crown and Dignity…”—Royal Governor of Virginia, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, “Dunmore’s Proclamation”, circa. November 7, 1775In all, 12,000 African Americans fought for the loyalist cause, the majority of them having been former slaves. Though it should also be noted that most freed blacks in the colonies (who still received no short measure of discrimination and bigotry in spite of their freed status) also enlisted with the British. Preferring them to the more familiar oppressor found in racist white colonists.Depiction of a Black Loyalist in Lord Dunmore’s “Ethiopian Regiment”, which had 300 former slaves. Utilised by the British as both labourers, and light infantry. Their regimental uniforms often consisted of simple coats, shirts, and sashes with the words “Liberty to Slaves” painted upon them.After the war, many black loyalists ventured to other parts of the Empire, from Nova Scotia in Canada (a common loyalist destination), to British colonies in the Caribbean, and even to places as far off as London and the new growing British Colony in Sierra Leone.Another interesting subset of British loyalists were those of Native American stock. And we can look to men and women like Thayendanegea, who is better known by his “Christian name”, Joseph Brant to attempt to examine them.Brant was a Mohawk chief and loyalist from up-state New York whose people, and the majority of the tribal confederation they were a part of (the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee) allied themselves firmly with the British during the Revolutionary war. Their motivations for joining the loyalist cause differing quite significantly from other loyalists in the colonies.Portrait of Thayendanegea/Joseph Brant as depicted by painter George Romney, circa. 1776For instance, specifically in Joseph Brant’s case, his family were pious Anglican Christians with strong ties to the English church. Whom specifically sought out Brant’s aid in conducting missionary work, and his help in translations of Christian texts into local indigenous languages. Additionally, his sister (or half-sister) was also in a stable and committed relationship with the then British Superintendent for Indian Affairs, William Johnson. Meaning that Brant and his household already enjoyed and experienced a great deal of familiarity, affection, and friendship with the British.Painting of William Johnson with Joseph Brant, circa. 1700sAnd while Brant may have been an outlier in his closeness with the British, he was definitely not alone amongst native Americans in his other motivations for siding with the crown over the patriot rebels. This was because a main point of contention between patriot rebels and the British Parliament, had been the ban and restriction on settling land west of the Appalachian Mountains. These lands were designated as part of an Indian reserve by the colonial administration, under the auspices of preventing conflict between colonists and Native Americans. However, patriot rebel settlers and colonists opposed this. As, much of the reason why many had left for America in the first place, was for the promise of new land, which they felt was now being unjustly denied to them by the British government.Among Native Americans on the other hand, there seemed to be a belief that the Indian reserve and the treaties forged with the British, were really the only legal boundaries stemming the tide of white settlers from colonising their land, and pushing the natives further into the American interior. While most were probably not naive enough to believe that this was to be a permanent arrangement, or were deaf to the possibility of the British reneging on their promises. It was clear that the immediate threat lay with the primarily white patriot rebels, who had gained major support amongst settlers who coveted Native lands for themselves.The boundaries of the Indian Reserve at the start of the American Revolutionary War in 1775As a result, quite a lot of Native Americans ended up rallying behind the British as opposed to the rebel patriot cause. Ultimately believing the potential independent union of the colonies to be an existential threat. However, this is not to say that all Native Americans were loyalists.Indeed, the Iroquois Confederacy, of which Brant was a Chief in. Found itself split, as a result of the constituent tribes taking different sides in the conflict. Of the original six major tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy, the Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and half the Tuscarora joined the British. While the majority of the Oneida, and the other half of the Tuscarora who were on more friendly terms with the settlers, decided to revolt and aid the patriot rebels.In the south, the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole tribesmen fought with the British in an attempt to expel patriot rebel settlers and soldiers.After the war, unlike African-American or white loyalists. Most Southern Native American loyalists and allies often did not have to evacuate in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. And some like the Cherokee even continued fighting the new government of the United States.Northern Native loyalists like Joseph Brant and other Pro-British Iroquois however, were forced to cede much of their ancestral homelands in up-state New York to the fledgling United States. As their homes had been taken from them. Many emigrated across the Great Lakes to modern day Ontario, Canada with the blessing of the British. Where their descendants remain to this very day.Detail of Benjamin West’s The Reception of the American Loyalists by Great Britain in Year 1783 seen in the background of West's portrait of John Eardley Wilmot.I feel like this particular illustration really sums up the loyalist cause in a nutshell. The diversity of loyalists and their motivations, from the most senior white colonial administrator and the elevated Native chief, to the most unfortunate and wronged former African American slave are all depicted beautifully here.As Lady Britannia, the personification of Britain, extends a graceful hand to reward them with sanctuary and compensation for their loyalty to King and Country. The guardian angels and the cross above ultimately signifying the fidelity of most Anglican-Christian loyalists to their church.EDIT: If you want a more in-depth explanation of Loyalism, loyalists, and their stories in the American colonies at the time of the American revolution and war. Be sure to check out the book, Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World.It’s an enjoyable and well-researched read by Harvard History Professor, Maya Jasanoff. And I’d recommend it to anyone who’s even remotely interested in the subject.

Writing with the benefit of hindsight in 1818, John Adams, one of the central figures in the American Revolution, recalled that Americans were committed to independence in their hearts long before war broke out in America in 1775. Adams' comment suggests that American independence was inevitable: this was not the case. In 1763, Americans joyously celebrated the British victory in the Seven Years' War, revelling in their identity as Britons and jealously guarding their much-celebrated rights which they believed they possessed by virtue of membership in what they saw as the world's greatest empire.Americans had contributed significantly to the recent victory both militarily and financially, yet within a dozen years of the British victory war broke out between British soldiers and Massachusetts militiamen at Lexington and Concord. Between 1763 to 1775, successive British governments took decisions which resulted in the loss of the 13 rebellious colonies in America. If John Adams was correct and revolution was in the hearts of Americans years prior to 1776, then it was the actions of British ministers which made independence first a possibility and then a likelihood.The British victory in the Seven Years' War had been costly in human and financial terms. In 1763, George Grenville, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reckoned that Britain's budget deficit was in excess of £122 million. Desperate to find new sources of revenue, Grenville looked to the colonies and viewed from cash-strapped London, the North American settlements were very attractive.The Stamp ActGeorge Washington ©In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers. Americans, British officials concluded, benefited from the protection afforded by the British army and the Royal Navy, and it would only be fair if they contributed to their own defence.So in 1765 Grenville, acting as prime minister, proposed a far-reaching tax for Americans and Parliament adopted a Stamp Act in March of 1765. Under the terms of the Act, scheduled to take effect on 1 November, almost anything formally written or printed would have to be on special stamped paper for which a tax must be paid. Among the items covered by the tax were wills, deeds, diplomas, almanacs, advertisements, bills, bonds, newspapers, playing cards and even dice. Anyone who was involved in any legal transactions, purchased a newspaper or pamphlet or accepted a government appointment would have to pay the tax. In short, the Stamp Act would affect nearly all Americans. Grenville intended, with the full agreement of Parliament, that the Stamp Act should not only raise revenue, it should clearly demonstrate that the British government through Parliament exercised political sovereignty over the colonies....most of the colonial assemblies adopted resolutions condemning the Stamp Act.Unsurprisingly, Americans responded negatively to the Stamp Act, arguing that they had contributed to their own defence during the late war by providing manpower, money and supplies to the British war effort. They argued that they already paid taxes which were raised locally - each colony had its own assembly which levied local taxes. Colonists in America felt that they discharged their obligations when they paid colonial taxes and they resented being compelled to pay taxes levied by a Parliament in which they were not represented. Moreover, they contended, the distance between America and Britain precluded American representation in Parliament. And so, in the spring and early summer of 1765, most of the colonial assemblies adopted resolutions condemning the Stamp Act.The government in London was unimpressed by the constitutional arguments made by the colonists or the petitions and resolutions adopted by their assemblies. If the Americans wanted to register their dissatisfaction with the Stamp Act, they would have to resort to less subtle means.Violent oppositionA reconstruction of the Redcoats and Rebels in Lexington, USA ©During the summer, matters came to a head in the colony of Massachusetts which was in the grip of a post-war recession. Its major town, Boston, had a long tradition of rioting and popular demonstrations to defend local interests and it was particularly hard hit by the downturn. The combination of economic hard times, an unpopular and unprecedented tax as well as a local tradition of violent resistance was potentially dangerous....American opponents of the Act rendered it a dead letter by the autumn.On 14th August, an angry mob attacked the house of Andrew Oliver - the local man rumoured to be responsible for collecting the tax. Then on the 26th they damaged the houses of colonial officials and completely destroyed the home of the colony's Lieutenant Governor. The demonstrations spread throughout the colonies and, through threats, intimidation and violence, American opponents of the Act rendered it a dead letter by the autumn.Commercial boycottHaving nullified the proposed tax on the streets, American protestors wanted to secure the repeal on the offending legislation in Parliament. In October several colonies sent delegates to New York to attend a 'Stamp Act Congress' which proposed a commercial boycott as means to pressure Parliament to act. American opponents of the Stamp Act would refuse to purchase British goods in order to put commercial pressure on Parliament to repeal the act.The tactic worked. In March 1766, Parliament acquiesced and repealed the Stamp Act. Parliament simultaneously declared:Parliament assembled, had, hath and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America.In other words, although Parliament was repealing the Stamp Act, it retained its right to govern America. Many Americans took a different view. The Boston loyalist Peter Oliver - the brother of Andrew Oliver who had suffered during the riots of August 1765 - wrote bitterly of the repeal:[The Americans] were swelled with their own Importance, & had felt so little from British Power, that they now hugged themselves in Security, regardless of what a Power at 3000 Miles distant could do unto them; ... A Law without Penalties, or one with Penalties not exacted, is... useless to Mankind.... It is in Government as it is in private Life: a desultory, undetermined Conduct often induces Contempt.Oliver was one of the few supporters of British rule in America who understood its limits and could explain its failure. Having given in to colonial pressure, Parliament ceded the authority it was trying to assert.Liberties endangeredYorktown battlefield, Virginia, USA ©The conflict between Parliament and the colonies had arisen out of the different assumptions made on each side of the Atlantic. For most of the previous 150 years, the colonists had been left largely to their own devices in what some historians have described as 'salutary neglect'. Because land was plentiful most adult males (at least those of European origin) could meet property requirements and vote. In consequence a strong tradition of self-government developed in the colonies and colonists jealously guarded their political rights which they saw as theirs because they were British.Paradoxically it was Parliament, supposedly the guardian of British liberty, which seemed to endanger the liberties of Britons in America in 1765.Paradoxically, it was Parliament, supposedly the guardian of British liberty, which seemed to endanger the liberties of Britons in America in 1765. In the aftermath of the Seven Years' War, British political leaders and imperial administrators sought to assert greater control over the far-flung parts of the empire and in so doing they came into conflict with the political traditions and assumptions of the colonists who resisted what they saw as unconstitutional parliamentary innovation. The American Revolution began in a dispute over finance in which the British government advocated change and the colonists sought to maintain tradition. As the imperial crisis developed neither British nor American political leaders demonstrated a willingness or ability to compromise.George Grenville resigned from the Chancellorship in July 1765 at the height of the Stamp Act crisis. His successors over the next decade confronted the same problem of trying to raise revenue in America. In 1767, Parliament adopted a wide range of customs duties which revived American opposition so that protests and rioting ensued and British troops were moved from frontier posts to the major seaports, especially Boston, where the resistance was concentrated.Boston Tea PartyIn another climbdown, in March 1770 Parliament repealed the duties, with the symbolic exception of the tax on tea. Relations continued to deteriorate and the American resistance became more intransigent. In December 1773 in the famous 'Boston Tea Party' protestors destroyed £10,000 worth of tea in protest of the tea duty. In consequence, Parliament adopted a series of punitive measures and Massachusetts was placed under military rule in 1774.By the spring of 1775, political resistance gave way to violence as war between the British and colonists broke out. The conflict quickly spread. In 1776 the colonists declared themselves independent and in 1783, following a prolonged and bloody war, Britain was forced to recognise the independence of the United States.ConclusionThe war didn’t have to happen at all, the practicalities of having such a vast empire makes it impossible to retain it forever, but an arrangement, something like dominionship, under which Americans would have remained part of the empire. If offered such an arrangement in the first months of the war, I believe most Americans would have happily accepted it, considering right up until the start of the war, the vast majority of Americans were fiercely loyal to Britain.Ultimately, perhaps by the mid-19th-century, British North America would have become independent in the same way Canada, Jamaica, and Australia became independent and self-governing under the British Commonwealth. Franklin thought this would happen naturally. The nature of the American Revolution though, was not inevitable.Had the British made the overtures for peace even as late as 1775 and made the colonists full participants in the Empire the drive for independence would have faltered. After that it was going to be harder to put the genie back in the bottle, but we must always remember that the final results of the war could very easily had a different look had many things not occurred as they did. Without French, Spanish and Dutch aid the Americans would not have won anything remotely close to what they did if even one colony had broken free which is extremely doubtful.If not for the obstinacy of Parliament in ongoing taxation exercises, the issue would have gradually receded. Some sort of commonwealth of looser association of the American Colonies, as has spread throughout former British possessions, was the more likely outcome.American Independence was not inevitable, but for some communities the American Revolution was unavoidable. Many communities and individual revolutionaries tried to reform imperial policies that offended them, at least initially.For many British North Americans social and cultural issues stood at the center of their quarrels with imperial rule. For these Americans, the American Revolution was as much about social reform as it was about politics. For example, in Albany, New York many inhabitants rebelled and protested because they wanted Britons to accept them as fellow Britons. During the French and Indian War, the British Army had treated the Albanians poorly and violated their English constitutional rights with forcible quartering policies. The British Army violated the Albanians’ rights because they viewed them as “Dutch” or “Dutchmen,” not as Britons. Many in Albany embraced the Revolution as a movement for social reform. However, they became wary as talk and protests turned towards war and as war turned towards independence.While many political, economic, and demographic forces pointed toward independence, few individuals in 1774 would admit to anything other than being proud subjects of the British Empire. North American inhabitants generally felt comfortable living in provinces dominated by English language, culture, and values. I believe that a combination of more conciliatory British ministerial policies and, later, decisive American battlefield defeats, might have combined to avert or neutralize the American Rebellion. While hindsight always makes the outcome appear inevitable, rather than full independence the North American provinces might have achieved something akin to British Commonwealth status. We would have done so far earlier than Canada and might have continued to number among other realms within the empire where “the sun never sets.”that is how, right up until the first death, the war could have been completely avoided. It really was simply a result of very posh men in Westminster disregarding the rights and dismissing the feelings or their citizens, but hey? This is how the North of England feels like today with a. Troy Government!Im up for rebelling and becoming part of Scotland, VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

The GST structure proposed for India is synchronised with the constitutional framework of the country, enabling concurrent levy and collection of GST by the Centre and the States.Therefore, considering the constitutional amendments carried out by the government, autonomy of the States is not to be impacted by the implementation of GST.The Indian Constitution enumerates the taxation powers of the Centre and State under List I and List II of the Seventh Schedule.The Centre can pass laws on the heads mentioned under List I such as income tax and the States can pass laws on the heads mentioned in List II such as sales tax.To introduce the GST, which subsumed many of these taxes, hence requires amendment of the Constitution.Moreover , the State of J&K has its own constitution and any changes in the taxing scheme of the state, meant amending the constitution.The 122nd Constitutional Amendment Bill that included the exact form and processes of the GST was drafted and moved in both Houses after consulting with the States, and passed by both the houses, and finally ratified by the President Of India. The state of J&K adopted the GST resolution on 06/07/2017, the last state to do so.Sources :[1] All you need to know about GST.Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill, explainedJammu and Kashmir passes bill to implement GST in the state - The Economic TimesFootnotes[1] What is GST: Everything you need to know about four bills cleared by Union Cabinet