&w=3840&q=100)
Who pays GST on bonuses that cover your GST on online gaming bets?
India's online gaming industry is facing a fresh tax quandary as authorities move to levy Goods and Services Tax (GST) on promotional bonuses that are specifically designed to cover the GST paid by users on their bets.
These bonuses, widely used across real-money gaming platforms to attract and retain users, typically match the 28 per cent GST paid by players and are credited as non-withdrawable in-game credits. While players may see them as free rewards, the tax department now argues that these incentives constitute a 'consideration' for services, and should be taxed accordingly.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
According to The Economic Times, at least four gaming firms have received notices from the indirect tax department alleging non-payment of GST on such bonuses. The authorities claim that even if users do not directly pay for these credits, the platforms are effectively doing so on their behalf, making the amount taxable under GST rules.
'The bonuses are usable for gameplay and are therefore part of the overall transaction value,' a senior official told the publication. The government is relying on Rule 31B of the Central GST Rules, introduced in October 2023, to justify applying the 28 per cent GST rate on the full value of these credits.
Gaming firms argue that the interpretation is flawed. One industry executive said via a closed forum that their company had been issued a summons and urged to make voluntary payments. 'Our business operations have been severely impacted, and we are preparing to challenge this in the Supreme Court next week,' the person said.
The controversy only serves to add another layer to the legal battles on the issue that are already under way, with the sector contesting retrospective tax claims from 2017 to 2023. Now, the key question for regulators and the courts is whether GST applies even when the player isn't the one footing the bill.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Helpless man in front of his kids became a life lesson for billionaire Harsh Goenka because of his own father
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.


Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
NDMC issues uniform signage rules for Khan Market; extra charges for boards over 2.5 sq mt
New Delhi, The New Delhi Municipal Council has issued a set of comprehensive guidelines for standardising shop signage and facades in Khan Market, one of the most posh and high-end markets in Lutyens' Delhi. NDMC issues uniform signage rules for Khan Market; extra charges for boards over 2.5 sq mt The move is aimed at enhancing civic aesthetics and ensuring architectural uniformity across the nationally renowned shopping and dining destination. According to the guidelines, all shopkeepers and premises owners are required to replace existing signage with new ones, conforming to the prescribed design within two months. In case of non-compliance, the NDMC will remove improper signage without issuing further notice. The guidelines permit shop signage to span the full width of the storefront if desired by the owner. However, as per the Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017 framed under directions from the Supreme Court and finalised by the Environment Pollution Authority any signage exceeding 2.5 square metres will be subject to additional charges. The standard signboard size is 450 mm in height and 900 mm in length, backed by a pre-coated grey metal sheet. Retractable awnings are allowed, with a maximum projection of 1000 mm, while permanent awnings are not permitted. The document also regulates the installation of air-conditioning units, false facades, and drainage elements. Ground floor AC outdoor units must not project more than 750 mm from the wall surface. False facades are permitted to extend up to 200 mm from the original wall. Rainwater and drainage pipes on upper floors must be properly encased and connected to the municipal drainage system. To maintain visual clarity, all hanging wires must be removed, and water tanks placed on terraces must be screened from public view using suitable materials. These guidelines apply to all shop typologies including single-front, double-front, corner shops, rear-lane shops, and corridor-facing outlets. Sanjeev Mehra, president of the Khan Market Traders' Association, told PTI, 'We have requested the NDMC to provide a detailed presentation on the type of signboards that need to be installed so that everything is clarified at once. The NDMC is scheduled to give this presentation on Monday .' The initiative is part of NDMC's broader effort to create uniformity in urban design and preserve the elite and historic character of key commercial zones in the Lutyens' Delhi. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.


Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Cash loan of over Rs 20,000 not a ‘legally enforceable debt', rules Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that a cash loan exceeding Rs 20,000 does not constitute a 'legally enforceable debt' since such transactions are prohibited under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, if a cheque issued for the repayment of such an illegal loan is dishonoured, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be attracted. Justice P V Kunhikrishnan delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by P C Hari of Pathanamthitta, challenging his conviction and sentence in a financial cheating case. The allegation against Hari was that he had borrowed Rs 9 lakh in cash from Shine Varghese of Pathanamthitta, and that the cheque issued by him in discharge of the said amount had been dishonoured. The trial court found Hari guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment along with a direction to pay Rs 9 lakh as compensation. An appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the additional district and sessions judge, Pathanamthitta, prompting Hari to move HC. In his appeal, Hari argued that the transaction, as admitted by the complainant, was in cash. He relied on Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that any loan or deposit above Rs 20,000 must be made through an account transfer, cheque or demand draft. It was further submitted that the complainant had not paid income tax on the alleged loan amount. In such circumstances, Hari contended, the transaction itself was illegal, and a debt arising out of an illegal transaction could not be treated as legally enforceable. The court focused on the question of whether a cash loan above Rs 20,000 could be considered a 'legally enforceable debt.' Referring to prior judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court, the bench held that the disputed amount could not be treated as such. Consequently, HC set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant. Additionally, HC observed that the trial court had erred in treating the cash loan as a legally enforceable debt. It cautioned that if courts begin to regularise such transactions, it would encourage illegal monetary dealings among citizens and potentially enable the conversion of black money into white through the machinery of criminal courts. The bench further noted that when the Govt of India is actively promoting a shift towards complete digital transactions, courts cannot turn a blind eye and effectively validate substantial cash dealings by recognising them as legally enforceable under law.