India's GoM on online gaming, casinos, horse racing
broadly agrees on 28% GST; Goa has a different view
A Group of Ministers (GoM), set up to examine issues
related to the taxation of casinos, racecourses and
online gaming, have broadly agreed that a 28% GST should
be imposed on all three activities. However, there was
no consensus on the taxability of online games, as Goa
proposed an 18% tax on platform fees, sources told PTI.
In its upcoming meeting on
July 11, the GST Council is scheduled to make a final
decision on whether the tax should be levied on gross
gaming revenue (GGR), or fees charged by the platform;
or on the full face value of bets put in by players of
online gaming, horse racing and casinos, PTI reported.
Additionally, the Council, chaired by the Union Finance
Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and comprising state
counterparts, needs to determine whether these
activities fall under the category of actionable claims
of betting and gambling.
A group of top online gaming firms has sent a
representation through the Ficci Gaming Committee to the
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), urging
the body not to hike the GST rate for the sector to 28%
from 18% as suggested by ministers’ panel.
|
|
The companies said a change in GST rate from 18% on GGR
to 28% would be "extremely detrimental to the survival
of the online gaming industry as no business operations
can survive with such high taxation". Also, the impact
of charging GST on the entire stake value – whether at
the rate of 28% or 18% – would be equally disastrous for
the online gaming industry, they said.
According to Saumya Singh Rathore, a
co-founder of gaming platform WinZO
Games, proposing a 28% tax for
gaming companies that are still
focused on building intellectual
property and technology would lead
to the demise of many smaller
players and discourage new entrants
with alternatives to foreign
products and technology.
The Group of Ministers, convened by
Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad
Sangma, includes members from eight
states - West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh,
Goa, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Gujarat,
and Maharashtra.
Among these states, West Bengal and
Uttar Pradesh believe that a 28% GST
should be imposed on all three
activities based on the full face
value of bets placed. Gujarat,
however, suggests levying a 28% tax
on platform fees.
Meghalaya suggested that a 28% tax
should be imposed on GGR, platform
fees, or commissions charged by
casinos, online gaming, and horse
racing. It also proposed creating a
special mechanism, an "Escrow
Account," to pool prize money for
easier administration of the tax.
Goa recommended a 28% tax on the
gross gaming revenue of casinos and
an 18% GST on platform fees or
service charges levied by platform
operators. It also suggested
treating contributions to the prize
pool as supplies not subject to GST.
Tamil Nadu and Telangana suggested
that if the GST Council determines
that the three activities are not
actionable claims of betting and
gambling, a 28% tax should be levied
on GGR.
Maharashtra, while suggesting a 28%
rate for all three activities,
argued that there should be no
differentiation in taxation based on
whether the activities involve skill
or chance, and the valuation rules
should reflect this. It proposed
providing a suitable abatement for
determining the taxable value of the
actionable claim, which typically
refers to a claim of debt.
Due to the differing views of the
members, the Group of Ministers has
deferred the final decision on the
tax rate and valuation to the GST
Council.
In
its initial report submitted to the
GST Council in June 2022, the Group
of Ministers recommended a 28% GST
on the full value of bets placed.
However, in the 47th GST Council
meeting in June of last year, Goa
raised reservations about the
report, and other states also
requested a review.
As a
result, the GST Council asked the
Group of Ministers to reconsider all
the issues raised in the report.
Subsequently, the Group of Ministers
met three times, conducted field
visits, and engaged with industry
stakeholders to gather more
information and perspectives.
Source::: THE ECONOMIC TIMES,
dated 06/07/2023.
|
|
|
|