HomeGSTOnline Gaming Firms Term 28% GST as Legally Defective in Supreme Court

Online Gaming Firms Term 28% GST as Legally Defective in Supreme Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

Online real-money gaming companies have challenged the 28% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on their services in the Supreme Court, arguing that the levy is legally unsound and inconsistent with the GST framework.

Appearing for the gaming operators, senior advocate V. Sridharan argued that the GST provisions in effect prior to October 2023 were not sufficient to justify the imposition of 28% tax on online gaming platforms. He contended that the government’s reliance on Rule 31A of the GST Rules—which deals with valuation of supply for lottery, betting, gambling, and horse racing—was flawed, as the rule lacked statutory backing under the Central GST (CGST) Act.

Sridharan further pointed out that Rule 31A did not follow the mandatory two-step process outlined in Section 15(5) of the CGST Act, which governs how taxable values must be determined. He argued that the rule was enforced without first notifying “actionable claims” as taxable supplies, making it legally invalid.

The petition also questioned the recent attempt to classify betting and gambling as “goods” through a modification in the Goods Rate Notification. Sridharan noted that prior to October 1, 2023, actionable claims were not included in the Customs Tariff Schedule, and therefore could not be taxed as goods under GST.

The counsel stressed that both gambling and online gaming were consistently treated as “services” under existing GST notifications and the Integrated GST Act. The sudden reclassification as “goods,” he said, lacked legal clarity and legislative backing.

The gaming firms also clarified to the court the difference between platform fees and prize pool contributions. While GST is already paid on platform fees, the prize pool contributions—collected from players and returned to winners—are held in trust and should not be considered “consideration” for taxation under GST.

This legal battle carries significant implications for the online gaming industry, which is grappling with retrospective tax demands and a new tax regime that could reshape its operational and financial landscape.

Read More: GST Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Key Services Under Scanner as May 2025 Update Expands Scope

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

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : MARCH 4, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for March 4, 2026.GSTEXECUTIVE CIRCULAR CAN’T CURTAIL STATUTORY...

When Service Tax Is Shown Separately In Invoices, Assessee Can’t Later Claim Cum-Tax Benefit Merely Because Tenant Failed To Pay Tax: CESTAT

The Bengaluru Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has upheld...

ITAT Remands Rs. 1.47 Crore Addition Over Unexplained Cash Deposits Under S. 69A

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an addition...

Dept. Failed to Prove Clandestine Removal In ‘Gold Mohar’ Pan Masala Case: CESTAT Quashes Cash and Goods Confiscation 

The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : MARCH 4, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for March 4, 2026.GSTEXECUTIVE CIRCULAR CAN’T CURTAIL STATUTORY...

When Service Tax Is Shown Separately In Invoices, Assessee Can’t Later Claim Cum-Tax Benefit Merely Because Tenant Failed To Pay Tax: CESTAT

The Bengaluru Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has upheld...

ITAT Remands Rs. 1.47 Crore Addition Over Unexplained Cash Deposits Under S. 69A

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an addition...