HomeSupreme CourtSupreme Court Stays Coercive Action In Online Fantasy Gaming Tax Demand Case

Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action In Online Fantasy Gaming Tax Demand Case

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against an online fantasy gaming company facing a substantial tax demand, as it took note of pending proceedings on similar issues and deferred further hearing until a related judgment is delivered.

The interim protection was granted in a writ petition filed by Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited, which has challenged the levy and recovery proceedings initiated against it by tax authorities. The company has questioned the legality of the tax demand arising from its online fantasy sports operations.

The matter was heard by a three-judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi. During the hearing, the Court was informed that similar issues are already under consideration in a batch of connected matters, including SLP (C) Nos. 19366–19369 of 2023, in which judgment had been reserved on August 12, 2025, by a two-judge Bench.

Taking note of this development, the Court ordered that the present writ petitions be listed after the pronouncement of judgment in the pending special leave petitions.

In the interim, the apex court directed that “no coercive action shall be taken” against the petitioner company. The order effectively restrains the authorities from initiating recovery proceedings, attachment, or other enforcement measures pursuant to the impugned tax demand until further orders.

The company had sought ex-parte ad-interim relief, arguing that immediate enforcement of the tax demand would cause irreparable harm to its operations. While the Court did not enter into the merits of the dispute at this stage, it granted protective relief in view of the broader legal questions awaiting adjudication.

Case Details

Case Title: Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited Versus UOI

Case No.: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).153/2026

Date: 16-02-2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: Lalitendra Gulani, Adv.

Read More: GST Refund Limitation Inapplicable to Double Tax Deposit Made Under Mistake: Orissa HC

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Can’t Unfreeze Bank Account Amid Allegations of Fraudulent Multi-Layer Transactions: Punjab & Haryana HC 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to interfere with the freezing of...

Delay Beyond Prescribed Condonable Period Can’t Be Entertained By Appellate Authorities, Even In Interest Claims On Rebate: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated the strict statutory limitation framework under Section 35...

Bombay HC Directs Filing of CA-Certified Affidavit to Prove No Unjust Enrichment in Tax Dispute Involving Flat Buyers

The Bombay High Court has directed the petitioner to substantiate its claim that no...

More like this

Can’t Unfreeze Bank Account Amid Allegations of Fraudulent Multi-Layer Transactions: Punjab & Haryana HC 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to interfere with the freezing of...

Delay Beyond Prescribed Condonable Period Can’t Be Entertained By Appellate Authorities, Even In Interest Claims On Rebate: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated the strict statutory limitation framework under Section 35...