Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
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

Management, Technical Services Rendered From China Not Taxable as FTS Under India-China DTAA: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments...

CGST Corruption Case: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Advocate After 9 Months in Custody

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has granted bail to 70-year-old advocate Naresh Kumar...

CBDT Removes Arrest Provision for Tax Recovery

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the Income-tax Rules, 2026, bringing...

CBDT Revises Valuer and Income-tax Practitioner Forms, Extends Key Deadlines

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules,...

More like this

Management, Technical Services Rendered From China Not Taxable as FTS Under India-China DTAA: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments...

CGST Corruption Case: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Advocate After 9 Months in Custody

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has granted bail to 70-year-old advocate Naresh Kumar...

CBDT Removes Arrest Provision for Tax Recovery

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the Income-tax Rules, 2026, bringing...