GST Gaming Case Day 9: ASG Plays Games, Salve Calls Case Weak
The Supreme Court’s ongoing hearing on the Gameskraft batch of cases saw heated exchanges between senior lawyers on May 16, 2025. The focus of Day 9 was the validity of GST rules on online gaming platforms.
Senior advocate Harish N. Salve, representing gaming companies, continued his arguments. He asserted that no actionable claim is created by these platforms. He explained that players’ funds are kept in escrow accounts based on the Quistclose Trust principle. According to him, “The player can withdraw the funds at will.”
Salve emphasized that these funds do not form a right to property and cited multiple case laws. He further took the bench through Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the CGST Act and Rule 31A of the CGST Rules. He submitted that Section 15(5) must align with Section 15(1) and that rules cannot assign arbitrary supply value.
He raised objections against Rule 31A(3), which assigns 100% of the bet face value as the value of supply. He claimed it was against the concept of actual transaction value.
At this point, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N. Venkatraman interrupted the arguments. He stated, “I played on 14 different gaming websites and lost money. The funds are not withdrawable without playing.”
Salve objected to the ASG’s interruption, stating, “The ASG is edgy because he is fighting a losing case.”
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also representing gaming companies, responded with sarcasm. He stated, “Since the ASG has no case, he has become a gambler for the day.”
To this, the ASG replied humorously, “Thankful that Dr. Singhvi is now conceding the activities are gambling and not skill-based.”
Salve also compared online gaming with casinos. He said casinos pay GST only on the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), not on total bets. He argued that show-cause notices were issued based on assumptions without proper records.
