The Supreme Court today on August 12, 2025 concluded hearings in the Gameskraft batch of GST cases after 31 days of substantive arguments spanning more than 90 hours. Judgment is now reserved, with parties allowed two weeks to file their final written submissions. Matters relating to the challenge to Rule 31A of the GST Rules by turf clubs and challenge to Rule 31C by casino operators have been de-tagged and will be heard separately.
Senior counsel, continued his rejoinder submissions today for fantasy sports body FIFS. He reiterated that in contests offered by FIFS members, all contest entry fees are deposited into an independent fiduciary account, with only platform fees credited to the platform’s operating account. He argued that actionable claims, if any, arise only at the time winnings (minus platform fee) are credited to the player’s wallet, at which point they are discharged and exempt from GST as neither gambling, betting, nor lottery. He submitted that fantasy sports are constitutionally protected games of skill, with the issue having attained finality through multiple judicial pronouncements, including orders of the Supreme Court dismissing SLPs. He also challenged the maintainability of show cause notices issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, given the consistent judicial precedents during the relevant period and also referred the industry’s ongoing representations to the government.
Another senior counsel, in his rejoinder for the casino industry, criticised the department’s stance that casinos supply actionable claims as goods while show cause notices proceed on the footing that they provide gambling services. He stressed the differences between casino games, online rummy, and fantasy sports, noting that casinos themselves wager money in certain games. He attacked the “house advantage” methodology for calculating gross bet value as speculative, based on assumptions and probabilities, and producing demands more than seven times the gross gaming revenue earned during the relevant period.
Another senior counsel, submitted that the revenue had shifted from earlier treating wagering, betting, and gambling as synonymous to now distinguishing them. He argued that settled jurisprudence treats wagering as including betting, and that since the platforms’ transactions are wagering in nature, no actionable claim is created or supplied.
Another senior advocate for AIGF, responded to the “ten sutras” on gambling and betting advanced earlier by the ASG. He maintained that staking money on games of skill cannot transform them into gambling or betting.
Another senior advocate, contested the ASG’s reading of HSN Entry 999692, stating that it nowhere restricts the entry to hire-based online gambling services.
Another senior counsel for Winzo, argued that if the ASG’s contention is accepted that platforms create actionable claims rather than transfer them, the activity would at most amount to supply of services, not goods, and could not be taxed on the full face value of bets as goods.
Over the closing days before today, the court had also heard extensive rejoinders from the industry, addressing issues such as the scope of actionable claims, the valuation of bets under the CGST Act, the distinction between games of skill and chance, and the treatment of funds held in escrow or fiduciary accounts.
With oral arguments now concluded, the Supreme Court’s decision is awaited, a ruling that is expected to have far-reaching consequences for the GST regime applicable to online gaming, fantasy sports, and casinos.
