HomeGSTSupreme Court Adjourns Hearing on Gaming Industry’s Challenge to 28% GST

Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing on Gaming Industry’s Challenge to 28% GST

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court adjourned the much-anticipated hearing on the controversial 28% Goods and Services Tax (GST) imposed on gaming industry. 

The Indian government, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkatraman, sought an adjournment due to a scheduling conflict with another key taxation matter.

The case, which has an estimated financial impact of ₹2.5 lakh crore, is being closely watched by the gaming industry, policymakers, and investors alike. Senior counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gameskraft, urged the Court to list the matter for hearing by the end of March or in April. 

However, the bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, appeared inclined to take up the case in the coming days.

Read More: New Financial Year 2025-26: Key Tax Changes Effective April 1, 2025

Industry Challenges Government’s Interpretation of Rule 31A

Gaming companies are mounting a strong defense against what they consider an unjustified and industry-crippling tax burden. The primary point of contention revolves around the government’s interpretation of Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, which mandates a 28% GST on the face value of bets. The industry argues that this provision applies solely to gambling and betting, whereas online skill-based games like poker, rummy, and fantasy sports should not be classified under the same category.

The gaming sector has long maintained that the distinction between games of skill and gambling has been well established in Indian jurisprudence. Numerous High Court rulings over the past decades have reaffirmed that games requiring skill do not fall under the ambit of betting or gambling, a view that the government is now contesting in court.

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

Mere Facilitation of Customs Clearance Can’t Establish Knowledge of Smuggling: Madras High Court 

The Madras High Court has held that mere facilitation of customs clearance cannot establish...

Income Tax Dept. Can’t Ignore Documents, Furnished by Assessee While Making Unexplained-Credit Addition: Delhi High Court 

The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax department cannot ignore documents,...

Delhi High Court Declines to Revisit CENVAT Credit Evidence, Holds Judicial Review of Settlement Commission Orders Narrow

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the...

Settled Customs Dispute Can’t Be Reopened Through Article 226 Challenge to Interest Liability: Delhi High Court 

The Delhi High Court has held that a party which consciously opts to settle...

More like this

Mere Facilitation of Customs Clearance Can’t Establish Knowledge of Smuggling: Madras High Court 

The Madras High Court has held that mere facilitation of customs clearance cannot establish...

Income Tax Dept. Can’t Ignore Documents, Furnished by Assessee While Making Unexplained-Credit Addition: Delhi High Court 

The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax department cannot ignore documents,...

Delhi High Court Declines to Revisit CENVAT Credit Evidence, Holds Judicial Review of Settlement Commission Orders Narrow

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the...