- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court seeks Central Government response on online gaming companies’ plea against 28 percent GST
Supreme Court seeks Central Government response on online gaming companies’ plea against 28 percent GST
The petitioners included Dream 11, Games 24x7, and Head Digital Works
The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Central Government and the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence on a plea filed by online gaming companies challenging the levy of 28 percent Goods and Service Tax (GST) on all forms of online real-money gaming.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra issued notice after hearing the gaming companies’ counsel, Senior Advocate Harish Salve.
The petitioners included Dream 11, Games 24x7, and Head Digital Works.
In its 50th meet in July 2023, the GST Council had recommended that online gaming along with casinos and horse racing should be taxed at a uniform rate. The Council decided that there should be no distinction between ‘games of skill’ and ‘games of chance’.
Earlier, the Central Government had proposed the introduction of online gaming regulations in the form of amendments to Information Technology. Later, the draft rules were notified.
The rules defined a gaming platform as an ‘online gaming intermediary’ which would have the games registered with a ‘self-regulatory body’ comprising a board of directors or the governing body.
Upon an application, the regulatory body was proposed to be registered by the ministry.
Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman appeared for the Central Government.