The Centre has requested the Supreme Court for one more week to file submissions in the Rs 2.5 lakh crore GST dispute on online gaming, just as the verdict is awaited. Industry giants argue that games of skill cannot be equated with “betting and gambling.”
New Delhi: The Government of India has once again asked the Supreme Court for more time before the final judgment in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) case linked to online gaming. On Monday, government counsel Chandrashekara Bharathi requested the apex court to allow one more week to submit supplementary arguments.
Earlier, the Centre had already sought two weeks for filing additional documents.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | BJP Govt’s Online Gaming Bill Becomes Law: Gets President’s Assent
This case is one of the biggest in India’s tax history, as it concerns whether GST should apply to online games. The total tax dispute is estimated at nearly Rs 2.5 lakh crore, making it a high-stakes legal battle involving gaming companies, industry bodies, and the central government.
The matter was heard in detail and on August 12, a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reserved its verdict after several days of continuous hearings.
The petitions were filed by leading companies in the sector, including Gameskraft and Delta Corp, as well as bodies such as the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the E-Gaming Federation (EGF), and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS).
The government’s fresh plea for extra time has come just a few weeks after Parliament passed a new law banning the online real money gaming industry. Legal experts say that this policy change might affect the final written stance that the Centre plans to file before the Supreme Court.
During the earlier marathon hearings, several top lawyers argued on behalf of the gaming industry. Senior counsels Arvind Datar, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Tarun Gulati, Balbir Singh, and C. Aryama Sundaram presented their submissions in defence of online skill-based gaming.
They told the bench that such games involve knowledge, training, and strategy, and therefore cannot be treated the same way as “betting and gambling” under the Constitution.
To support their point, they referred to well-known Supreme Court judgments in the RMDC case and the K.R. Lakshmanan case, both of which had drawn a clear line between games of skill and games of chance.
The industry also objected to the Revenue Department’s move to treat online rummy stakes as “actionable claims” under GST law. Lawyers argued that this interpretation had no legal foundation and went against established principles of taxation.
Further, the government had attempted to use the concept of “House Advantage”, a method normally applied in casino taxation, to justify its position. However, the petitioners strongly rejected this approach, saying it was only a notional figure created without any real calculation or merit.
Background
On August 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reserved its verdict in a landmark case concerning the applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online real money gaming (RMG), a decision that could impact a massive Rs 2.5 lakh crore tax dispute — one of the largest in the country’s legal history.
The case was heard by a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, who concluded the final round of arguments in multiple connected matters involving major players in the Indian gaming industry, including Gameskraft, Delta Corp, and industry associations such as the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), E-Gaming Federation (EGF), and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS).
The Union Government has been granted two weeks to submit additional submissions.
Senior advocates representing the gaming platforms highlighted key legal arguments:
- Skill vs. Chance: The constitutional phrase “Betting & Gambling,” as interpreted in previous RMDC rulings, applies only to games of chance, not games of skill. They argued that including skill games would require referral to a larger bench.
- Actionable Claims: The government’s classification of online rummy stakes as “actionable claims” was challenged, citing the Transfer of Property Act, which considers money an actionable claim only when a debt remains unpaid.
- Wagering Contracts: Counsel argued that wagering contracts are generally unenforceable under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, except in the case of horse racing, and that the Revenue selectively used legal provisions to support its case.
- Casinos and GST Rules: Arguments were also raised about the application of newly introduced GST Rules 31-B and 31-C (2023) in relation to casinos, with claims that the government’s calculation methods, including “House Advantage,” lacked legal and factual basis.
The submissions concluded by urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the government’s petitions and uphold the writ petitions filed by online skill gaming platforms, which, if allowed, would quash the massive tax demands against the industry.
CASE TITLE:
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) & ORS. vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Read Order:
