뉴스

Family Dispute, Then Stabbing Spree: Karnataka Boy Kills Father, Sister

The dispute may have been linked to the boy's addiction to online gaming, though police have not confirmed this as the motive.

Why did Supreme Court back curbs on online gaming?

What were the two sets of appeals concerning the regulation and taxation of online gaming platforms in front of the Court? What were the main objections raised by gaming companies against the GST levy? What are the likely consequences for India’s online gaming industry?

Why did Supreme Court back curbs on online gaming? | Explained

What were the two sets of appeals concerning the regulation and taxation of online gaming platforms in front of the Court? What were the main objections raised by gaming companies against the GST levy? What are the likely consequences for India’s online gaming industry?

GST ruling may cast wider tax net over casinos

The recent Supreme Court (SC) judgment on online gaming and betting is expected to have wider implications across gambling, horse racing, and casinos, experts feel. The court clarified that the GST valuation framework is not confined to any one segment but applies across betting and gambling activities.The ruling makes it clear that the tax framework cannot be read narrowly. “Rule 31A… applies broadly to all betting, gambling and horse racing… Limiting its applicability only to horse racing would render parts of the rule otiose,” a PwC India note on the SC ruling said.Nitin Vijaivergia, partner at Pricewaterhouse & Co LLP, said the judgment upholds the imposition of the top GST slab on online gaming platforms, triggering significant retrospective tax exposure. The court’s reasoning also centres on how such transactions are structured. It has been clarified that in betting and gambling, valuation can be based on the full amount staked and not merely on a narrower measure.“Section 15(1)… permits valuation based on the entire stake,” and “merely because a different method of valuation… may also have been possible, it does not render the Rule unconstitutional,” the note added.For online gaming and casinos, the judgment clarifies when tax liability arises. The court held that the taxable event is triggered when players commit funds to participate in games with uncertain outcomes and no longer retain control over those funds.This also alters the treatment of player funds. The ruling notes that once amounts are committed for participation, “such arrangements cannot be considered deposits or entrustments,” and “the entire staked amount is treated as consideration for the supply.”In the case of casinos, the position is very clear. The court held that tax would be levied on each instance of staking money on an uncertain outcome, and not on the operator’s net earnings or gross gaming revenue.“The mention of staking money on ‘uncertain future outcomes’ may have broader implications for promotional and skill contests with deterministic scoring, and similar other formats. Key operational elements such as wallet architecture, re-deposits, and cashback will be crucial to determine tax demands, especially considering amendments to GST Rules 31 and 31B affecting valuation,” Vijaivergia said.Tax experts say that, broadly, the GST law will now apply where money or money’s worth is staked on uncertain outcomes, and such amounts are treated as consideration for the supply.

Explained: Supreme Court verdict that delivers twin blow to online gaming

The two decisions came on separate appeals filed against multiple verdicts by high courts, both on taxation and on state laws banning such games

'Hard choices' ahead: Xbox CEO warns of tough decisions for Microsoft's gaming division

A game of thorns for gaming co directors

Mumbai: After a crushing court defeat, India's money gaming fraternity is now dreading whether the taxman would come after the companies' directors.The law allows the goods and service tax (GST) authorities to recover dues from board members of private limited companies if unpaid tax, interest, or penalty cannot be salvaged from the entities.Most real money gaming platforms were run by closely-held companies. While a director can escape personal liability if he demonstrates that the unpaid tax was not caused by gross neglect and wilful misstatement, many show cause notices, which triggered the legal feud, allege fraud and suppression of facts.Also read | Billionaire's FOMO: Ultra-rich pouring money into AI stackIn cases of frauds, the tax office can levy penalty of 100% of the tax demand. Platform managements are hoping for some relief from the fine print in Wednesday's Supreme Court (SC) judgement which upheld GST authorities stand to impose 28% tax on full value of bets. The ruling is yet to be released.By validating the SCNs, the SC effectively overturned earlier lower court rulings favouring gaming companies and dismissed the argument that 'games of skill' require different tax treatment under the GST framework for actionable claims.The GST Act provides for extended limitation period, enabling the department to issue SCNs up to five years from the due date of filing the relevant annual return in cases of fraud.131377275According to Ritesh Kanodia, partner, Aurtus Consulting, "There is strong legal support, including Supreme Court rulings, that when a matter involves a complex interpretation of the law, it cannot be treated as fraud or suppression. In this case, there was genuine ambiguity on whether GST applies at all and, if it does, on what value. Even the Karnataka High Court had earlier ruled in favour of taxpayers, which shows that the issue was debatable. Because of this, there is a strong argument that the 100% penalty may not be justified, thoughthe normal penalty (around 10%) may still apply."Ashish Karundia, founder of the eponymous CA firm, agreed that notices invoking the extended limitation period can certainly be challenged. "To sustain demands under Section 74, the department must establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Gaming companies are likely to argue that their operations, filings, and transaction trails were fully disclosed, and that the dispute pertains purely to legal interpretation rather than any concealment of facts," said Karundia.If the department eventually chases the directors, it has to send separate notices and examine their roles individually.Also read | A blueprint for West Bengal’s evolution from an entrepot to a production hubHowever, for earlier periods (July 2017 to March 2020), companies may be eligible for the Government's amnesty scheme, which provides a full waiver of interest and penalties, provided fraud is not established (i.e., a Section 74 notice [100% penalty] gets converted into a Section 73 Notice [10% penalty]). So, in many cases, companies may ultimately end up paying only the tax amount, said Kanodia.The companies have sought 12 weeks to reply to the adjudication panel in the GST department which would be followed by final tax demands and appeals before higher courts.The GST law was amended in 2023 to make online gaming, casinos, and horse racing taxable at 28% on the full face value of bets, regardless of whether it's game of skill or chance. These changes, applied retrospectively, imposed liabilities for past periods when the law was not explicit. Before 2023 companies were paying 18% tax on the fees platforms collected.Last year, the government hurriedly enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025 that completely prohibits online money games. The SC order on Wednesday not only puts a large financial burden on gaming companies but may also weaken their argument that since gaming is a state subject, the activity cannot be banned by a central law.

GST on online gaming: The house wins

Supreme Court Upholds 28% GST On Online Gaming, Validates Retrospective Tax Demands

The judgment effectively endorses the government’s position that online gaming platforms are liable to pay GST at 28% on the full face value of bets placed by users.