Pink Tax in India: Not a Real Tax, but Real Pain

Pink tax is the price women quietly pay for simply being women, even though no law, GST slab, or Finance Act in India officially recognises it. This pink tax has stayed mostly in articles and debates and never really reached the street. Maybe no one took it seriously enough or maybe women are just too tired to keep speaking up against something that silently affects their everyday lives.

What is pink tax, really?

Pink tax refers to the extra amount charged on goods and services marketed to women when compared to similar or functionally equivalent ones sold to men. The money does not go to the government. It goes to businesses with higher margins created through branding, packaging, and gendered marketing.

For example, a deodorant “for women” scented with flowers and a deodorant “for men” scented with wood may be the same size, offer the same protection, and cost the same to make. If the women’s version is priced higher, that difference is pink tax.

In India, no section in the Income-tax Act or GST law creates a pink tax. On paper, it does not exist. Yet women routinely pay more for the same basic utility. A razor, shampoo or a lotion costs extra simply because the packaging is pink and the label says “for her”.

“If the blue one is cheaper, why not buy it?”

This question dominates online debates. On paper, it sounds logical. In practice, several forces work against it.

Reddit users explain that gendered marketing strongly shapes behaviour. One commenter used the example of Diet Coke. Over time, Diet Coke became associated with women watching their weight. Many men refused to drink it, even though it was functionally similar to regular cola. Coca-Cola responded by launching Coke Zero, which had almost the same formula but darker, more “masculine” branding. It was a major success with male consumers.

Products are not just about function, they are about social signalling. In India, buying a product clearly labelled “for men” can invite comments or judgement. For many women, especially in workplaces or social settings, paying extra becomes easier than standing out.

Has any country addressed pink tax?

At the global level, very few countries have addressed pink tax in its true sense, meaning gender-based price differences in private markets. Some places in the United States have taken limited steps. California passed the Gender Tax Repeal Act in 1995, which bans different prices for similar services based on gender, such as haircuts or dry cleaning.

New York State introduced a similar law in 2020, covering “substantially similar” goods and services marketed to different genders but there is no nationwide ban, and enforcement remains limited, showing how difficult it is to regulate private pricing even when the problem is acknowledged.

Most countries have instead focused on the “tampon tax,” which is a real government tax on menstrual products. The UK removed VAT on sanitary products in 2021, Canada scrapped GST in 2015, Australia followed in 2019, and Kenya did so as early as 2004. Scotland went further by guaranteeing free access to period products by law.

GST Exemption on Sanitary Pads

India’s most concrete, documentable “gendered cost” controversy was GST on sanitary napkins, which sparked activism and legal challenges. In 2017, public protests against GST on sanitary pads (#LahukaLagaan) framed the tax as penalizing menstruation.

The government defended the rate structure in official communications, arguing about pre-GST incidence and input tax credit mechanics. In July 2018, the GST Council decided to exempt sanitary napkins from GST (moving to “nil”). Post-exemption, analysts highlighted the “inverted duty”/input-credit issues and debated whether consumers saw meaningful retail price declines.

What can we do about it?

We (the consumers) can start by comparing unit prices such as per ml, per blade, or per gram, instead of just looking at the sticker price. Question “for women” claims and check whether the difference is only colour, fragrance, or packaging. When products are functionally identical, choosing gender-neutral options or even men’s versions can reduce extra cost.

The Government (Regulators) can strengthen existing consumer protection tools. Misleading claims that imply women’s products are superior without evidence can be treated as advertising violations under current consumer law. Regulators can also commission transparent, India-specific price audits with strict comparability rules, so the discussion moves beyond anecdotes and into measurable evidence.

Until the pink tax is recognized as a real cost of being a woman, it will stay invisible, unchallenged, and carried only by women.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates