The law allows the goods and service tax (GST) authorities to recover dues from board members of private limited companies if unpaid tax, interest, or penalty cannot be salvaged from the entities.
Most real money gaming platforms were run by closely-held companies. While a director can escape personal liability if he demonstrates that the unpaid tax was not caused by gross neglect and wilful misstatement, many show cause notices, which triggered the legal feud, allege fraud and suppression of facts.
Also read | Billionaire’s FOMO: Ultra-rich pouring money into AI stack
In cases of frauds, the tax office can levy penalty of 100% of the tax demand. Platform managements are hoping for some relief from the fine print in Wednesday’s Supreme Court (SC) judgement which upheld GST authorities stand to impose 28% tax on full value of bets. The ruling is yet to be released.
By validating the SCNs, the SC effectively overturned earlier lower court rulings favouring gaming companies and dismissed the argument that ‘games of skill’ require different tax treatment under the GST framework for actionable claims.
The GST Act provides for extended limitation period, enabling the department to issue SCNs up to five years from the due date of filing the relevant annual return in cases of fraud.
According to Ritesh Kanodia, partner, Aurtus Consulting, “There is strong legal support, including Supreme Court rulings, that when a matter involves a complex interpretation of the law, it cannot be treated as fraud or suppression. In this case, there was genuine ambiguity on whether GST applies at all and, if it does, on what value. Even the Karnataka High Court had earlier ruled in favour of taxpayers, which shows that the issue was debatable. Because of this, there is a strong argument that the 100% penalty may not be justified, thoughthe normal penalty (around 10%) may still apply.”
Ashish Karundia, founder of the eponymous CA firm, agreed that notices invoking the extended limitation period can certainly be challenged. “To sustain demands under Section 74, the department must establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Gaming companies are likely to argue that their operations, filings, and transaction trails were fully disclosed, and that the dispute pertains purely to legal interpretation rather than any concealment of facts,” said Karundia.
If the department eventually chases the directors, it has to send separate notices and examine their roles individually.
Also read | A blueprint for West Bengal’s evolution from an entrepot to a production hub
However, for earlier periods (July 2017 to March 2020), companies may be eligible for the Government’s amnesty scheme, which provides a full waiver of interest and penalties, provided fraud is not established (i.e., a Section 74 notice [100% penalty] gets converted into a Section 73 Notice [10% penalty]). So, in many cases, companies may ultimately end up paying only the tax amount, said Kanodia.
The companies have sought 12 weeks to reply to the adjudication panel in the GST department which would be followed by final tax demands and appeals before higher courts.
The GST law was amended in 2023 to make online gaming, casinos, and horse racing taxable at 28% on the full face value of bets, regardless of whether it’s game of skill or chance. These changes, applied retrospectively, imposed liabilities for past periods when the law was not explicit. Before 2023 companies were paying 18% tax on the fees platforms collected.
Last year, the government hurriedly enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025 that completely prohibits online money games. The SC order on Wednesday not only puts a large financial burden on gaming companies but may also weaken their argument that since gaming is a state subject, the activity cannot be banned by a central law.