For more updates follow Grant Thornton Bharat on WhatsApp
By: Manoj Mishra
19 Jun 20266 min read
A recent Supreme Court ruling has now redrawn the legal and fiscal landscape for online gaming industry. The judgment goes beyond the sector itself, raising wider concerns about retrospective taxation, valuation principles, platform-based business models and the degree of certainty businesses can expect in a rapidly evolving digital economy.
For decades, Indian jurisprudence has long distinguished between games of skill and games of chance, with only the latter falling within ‘betting and gambling’. These activities were regarded as res extra commercium which did not enjoy the same constitutional protection available to legitimate trade and businesses under Article 19(1)(g). This distinction formed bedrock of gaming jurisprudence and influenced legislative policy and related judicial interpretation.
Relying on this settled legal position, the Karnataka High Court (HC) in Gameskraft had quashed GST demand exceeding INR 21,000 crores. Similarly, Bombay HC had dismissed the Criminal PIL which alleged that fantasy sports platforms were engaged in illegal betting and gambling.
The SC's approach, however, marks a significant departure from this traditional framework. Instead of evaluating whether the underlying game is one of skill or chance, the Court focused on the nature of the economic transaction taking place when participants stake money in expectation of a contingent monetary return. It marks a defining moment in the evolution of digital economy and raises important questions about legal certainty, retrospective taxation, platform-based business models and the manner in which emerging technologies would be accommodated within traditional legal frameworks.
The industry’s long-standing position was that gaming platforms merely act as intermediaries or platform providers, facilitating gameplay and earning a platform fee on which GST was discharged. The stakes pooled from participants were viewed as passthrough amounts belonging to the players themselves.
The Supreme Court has now taken a different view. In substance the economic arrangement constitutes the creation, administrative control and monitisation of the transaction. Once participants stake money for the prospect of winnings, a conditional right to receive such winnings comes into existence, which constitutes a taxable ‘actionable claim’ under GST. Accordingly, although in form the online gaming operators were merely facilitating gameplay, but in substance, they were not merely neutral intermediaries rather were supplying betting and gambling through their platforms.
The significance of this would extend beyond online gaming. As commerce is increasingly migrating towards platform-driven ecosystems, network-based businesses and tokenised digital models, the distinction between a facilitator and a supplier is likely to become an
area of growing scrutiny. Future disputes may therefore focus less on contractual descriptions and more on the economic substance of the transaction and the role played by the platform in bringing it into existence.
While the legal principles may now stand settled, the economic consequences remain far
more complex. Prior to 1 October 2023, the industry largely discharged GST on platform fees or commissions retained by operators. The legislative amendments introduced in 2023 specifically prescribed a comprehensive framework for taxation of online gaming transactions including a separate valuation mechanism.
Considering these amendments as substantive change in law, the industry perceived the operation as prospective. The SC’s ruling effectively challenges understanding and creates significant retrospective exposure for transactions undertaken years before the legislative amendments came into force.
Perhaps the defining irony of the controversy lies in the fact that the industry itself is already adapting to a different future. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025 impose a blanket ban on online money gaming, including games involving stakes irrespective of whether they are based on skill, chance or a combination of both. The framework has compelled many operators to restructure their businesses by diversifying into adjacent segments or pivoting towards alternative digital offerings.
Businesses that have structured operations based on prevailing judicial understanding, industry practice and regulatory interpretation, may find themselves assessed under a fundamentally different characterisation of their transactions. For emerging technology sectors, this development may become one of the most closely studied aspects.
While the legal debate may have concluded, the real challenge lies in translating a settled legal position into an economically workable outcome. Estimates suggest that potential exposure exceeding INR 2.5 lakh crore including tax, interest and penalty, far beyond the financial capacity of several businesses operating within the sector.
For many operators, the underlying tax demand may significantly exceed their enterprise value, raising genuine concerns regarding liquidity, insolvency and long-term business viability. The implications may also extend beyond the corporate entity itself. Under the GST framework, while tax liabilities are ordinarily recoverable from the taxable person, certain provisions permit recovery from directors in specified circumstances, particularly where dues of a private company remain unrecovered. Additionally, separate penalty proceedings may be initiated against key managerial personnel or individuals alleged to have knowingly participated in tax contraventions. Although the applicability of such provisions would depend on the facts of each case, the sheer scale of the demands has inevitably widened the focus from corporate liability to potential management exposure.
The ramifications extend beyond taxpayers themselves. Significant investor capital had been deployed into the industry over the past decade, driven by the projected exponential growth, rising user adoption and the emergence of online gaming as one of India's most promising digital industries.
Tax systems occasionally confront situations where retrospective legal outcomes collide with substantial economic consequences. An interesting precedent lies in the SC’s decision in Mineral Area Development Authority. While affirming the retrospective demand on royalty, the Court was conscious of the substantial fiscal and commercial consequences of immediate enforcement. To balance competing interests, it devised a pragmatic framework involving staggered payments over 12 years, along with the waiver of interest and penalties.
No comparable framework presently exists in the online gaming context. Given the scale of the potential exposure and its wider economic implications, a similar calibrated transition framework is required to secure legitimate revenue without causing commercial disruption.
Furthermore, Section 11A of the CGST Act presents an additional avenue which may be considered. By recognising circumstances where tax positions have been adopted on the basis of prevalent industry practice or interpretational uncertainty, the provision acknowledges that exceptional situations may warrant calibrated legislative responses. Whether such measures are ultimately adopted remains a matter of policy. Nevertheless, the debate is likely to intensify as recovery proceedings progress.
The entire online gaming controversy will be remembered not merely for the legal principles it settled, but also for the manner in which the consequences are navigated. In many ways, the controversy has become a test of how our indirect tax system responds to emerging business models, rapidly evolving digital ecosystems and technological innovation that often outpaces traditional legal frameworks. The answers that emerge may ultimately shape the relationship between law, regulation and innovation in India's digital economy for years to come.
Shilpa Verma, Associate Director, Grant Thornton Bharat and Ajay Jha, Assistant Manager, Grant Thornton Bharat has also contributed to this article.
Grant Thornton Bharat’s PolicyCast is your window into policy, tax, and regulatory developments. Each episode features expert perspectives on issues that matter to businesses, individuals, and the wider economy.
India’s new online gaming rules introduce a unified classification and central oversight, shifting regulation to money flows and forcing a reset of business models across the sector.
India is entering a transformative era in digital gaming with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025.
