Article 264A

GST ON ONLINE GAMING AND DIGITAL SERVICES: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS Neha, SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA Vaibhav Garg,SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.59 The rapid advancement of the digital era has significantly elevated the role of online gaming and digital services in India’s economy. With the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on July 1, 2017, the Indian government aimed to establish a unified indirect tax regime. However, its application to the digital economy especially to online gaming has sparked intense legal and policy debates. The adoption of GST has brought substantial changes to the tax landscape for digital and online gaming sectors. A major turning point came with the 28% GST imposed on the full-face value of bets, equating skill-based gaming with gambling and betting. This decision, based on Rule 31A (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and recent October 2023 legislative amendments, led to a 412% surge in tax revenue, reaching ₹6,909 crore in just six months. [1]The constitutional validity of this framework is currently under scrutiny in GST Intelligence Directorate v. Games kraft Technologies (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1254[2]. This paper explores the effects of GST on these industries by analysing its evolution, regulatory structure, key challenges, supporting legal provisions, economic implications, stakeholder perspectives, and potential future developments.

M/S V.S. PRODUCTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [2022 (1) TMI 380 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)] Akshara Gupta, SCHOOL OF LAW, GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.58 This case comment examines the Karnataka High Court’s decision in M/S V.S. Products v. Union of India, considering the constitutional validity of charging Central Excise Duty along with Goods and Services Tax (GST) on tobacco products after the adoption of the GST regime in India. The petition, by a manufacturer of tobacco, objected to the twin levy as being contrary to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution on the ground that GST had absorbed excise duty on goods. The Union of India justified the twin levy, contending that excise duty is levied on manufacture, whereas GST is on supply, hence different taxable events. The court supported the viability of both levies, underlining that the 101st Constitutional Amendment and Article 246A don’t repeal Parliament’s power under Entry 84 of the Union List to continue imposing excise duty on some commodities, like tobacco. The ruling reiterates the principle that several taxes can coexist if they rest upon different taxable events and legislative authority. It also makes it clear that double taxation is not in and of itself unconstitutional unless arbitrary or discriminatory treatment is the result. The decision has far-reaching implications for India’s constitutional structure of indirect taxation, particularly in balancing new GST powers and reserved taxation jurisdiction under the old entries of the Union List.