Senior Counsel continued his arguments on Day 14 (July 16) of the on-going final hearing in the Gameskraft GST matter and relied upon English case laws and commentaries to buttress the point that a stakeholder (akin to a totalisator or sweepstake organiser) does not involve in wagering and thus the online gaming platform is not involved in supply of actionable claim in the form of chance to win in betting and gambling, although players inter se may be involved in wagering and betting/gambling.
He further submitted that under the Customs Tariff Act a new chapter for including rate notification could not have been included without parliamentary amendment and hence the machinery provision to tax fails. The necessary amendments with Parliament approval were only done in 2023.
He submitted that online gaming was included as service under the IGST Act and although the notification included it under goods, there was no chapter or notification under the Customs Tariff Act referred to in the notification that dealt with online gaming.
After, senior counsel appearing on behalf of online gaming platform Winzo commenced his arguments. He took the court through the architecture of the CGST Act and submitted that online gaming was included in the IGST Act as a service and further there was no supply of goods (that is actionable claim) by the platform. Senior counsel will continue his arguments today (17.07.2025).
