Delta Corp Limited has received a GST demand order from the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri, totaling ₹3.07 crore in differential tax for its Deltin Denzong Casino.
The order, dated October 14, 2026, covers the period from July 2017 to March 2022. It stems from proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017, and the Sikkim GST Act, 2017, regarding shortfalls in tax payments. The company disclosed this development to stock exchanges under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.
Breakdown of GST Demand
The differential GST demand is split into two primary components: valuation of actionable claims and mixed supply issues. The authority determined the taxable value for actionable claims based on directions from the Supreme Court of India, applying Rule 31C of the CGST Rules, 2017.
| Component | Differential GST Amount | Penalty | Interest |
| Valuation of actionable claims | ₹1.64 crore | Equivalent to demand | Applicable rate |
| Mixed supply (casino entry) | ₹1.43 crore | Equivalent to demand | Applicable rate |
| Total Differential GST | ₹3.07 crore | ₹3.07 crore | Applicable rate |
Regulatory Context and Company Response
The penalty levied under Section 74 of the CGST Act is equivalent to the differential GST demand amount for both components. Additionally, interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act has been applied at the notified rate from the day succeeding the due date of the return for each tax period until payment.
This order follows earlier disclosures by Delta Corp regarding notices received for the same period and the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. The company stated it is evaluating the order and may take appropriate steps, including filing an appeal within prescribed legal timelines.
What the Numbers Show
The total financial exposure extends beyond the ₹3.07 crore principal tax demand. Since the penalty equals the tax amount, the immediate liability doubles to approximately ₹6.15 crore before interest accruals. This structure highlights the high cost of non-compliance determinations where penalties are pegged directly to the disputed tax value.
