Statement–Assumption (State Octroi Hike Without Central Approval): Statement: The State Government has unilaterally increased octroi by 5% on all commodities entering the state without seeking approval of the Central Government. Assumptions: I) The State Government may be able to implement its decision. II) The Central Government may agree to support the State Government’s decision. III) The State Government may be able to earn a considerable amount through the additional octroi.

Introduction / Context:
A unilateral tax/levy increase presumes feasibility of enforcement and a fiscal objective. We examine which assumptions are necessary for the state’s move to be meaningful.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• State raises octroi by 5% without central approval.
• Octroi is a revenue instrument collected at entry points.
• Central approval is not sought.

Concept / Approach:
For the decision to make sense, (a) the state must be able to carry it out (administrative and legal implementability), and (b) the decision should materially contribute to revenue; otherwise, the move would be pointless. Support from the Centre is not logically required for a “unilateral” step.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Implementation feasibility (collection capability, notifications, checkpoints) is necessary; without it, the decision is empty. So I is implicit.II: “The Centre may agree to support” is explicitly not presumed because the move is unilateral; acceptance by the Centre is neither mentioned nor required. II is not implicit.III: A core purpose of raising a levy is to increase revenue; the assumption that it will yield “a considerable amount” is inherent to the policy choice. III is implicit.

Verification / Alternative check:
Governments adjust indirect levies to raise resources. If enforcement were infeasible or revenue trivial, the policy would lack rationale. Unilateral action, by definition, does not bank on central endorsement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All” wrongly adds II; “Only I” or “Only III” drops another necessary assumption; “None” ignores the obvious purposes behind a tax increase.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming every intergovernmental fiscal step needs central concurrence; overlooking that policy steps presuppose significant, not negligible, impact.

Final Answer:
I and III are implicit.