List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, in Directorate General of GST Intelligence HQs v. Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited (2026), upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online gaming activities as constitutionally valid, and rejected the constitutional and statutory challenge mounted against the levy of Central GST (CGST) on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling transactions. 

• The Court held that organised online gaming activities, including fantasy games involving pooled stakes and contingent price structures, give rise to actionable claims and supplies exigible to GST under the statutory framework governing betting and gambling transactions. Online game operators were held to be not mere intermediaries but suppliers of taxable actionable claims.

What was the Background of Directorate General of GST Intelligence HQs v. Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited (2026) Case? 

• Before the law was amended in 2023, online gaming companies generally paid GST at 18% on their platform fee or commission, commonly referred to as Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR). 
• Under this model, if a player deposited ₹100, the platform retained a portion as commission, and GST was levied only on that retained commission, treating the company as a provider of online services. 
• The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) took a different view, arguing that online real-money gaming platforms were effectively facilitating betting or gambling transactions, and that GST should be levied on the entire amount staked by users, not merely the platform's commission. 
• This interpretation significantly increased the tax burden — on a ₹100 deposit, the tax liability would rise from ₹1.8 under the earlier model to ₹28 if taxed at 28% on the full face value. 
• Gaming companies argued that fantasy sports, rummy, and poker had been judicially recognised as games of skill and that platforms merely provided a technological interface for skill-based contests. 
• In 2023, Parliament amended the CGST Act to introduce specific definitions relating to online money gaming and provide for a 28% GST on the full face value of bets or deposits made by users. 
• The tax department issued substantial show-cause notices to gaming companies for past periods based on the broader interpretation, with cumulative tax demands reportedly exceeding ₹1 lakh crore, making it one of the most significant indirect tax disputes in the digital economy sector. 
• Several companies challenged these demands before courts, arguing that the pre-amendment legal framework did not support taxation on the full value of stakes and that the government was effectively imposing a retrospective tax burden.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Character of Online Gaming as Betting and Gambling: The Court held that even skill-based games acquire the character of betting and gambling for GST purposes once money is staked on uncertain outcomes. The essential element of betting lies in staking money on uncertain outcomes. The character of betting and gambling does not exclusively depend upon whether the underlying activity is a game of skill or a game of chance, but upon the existence of stakes placed upon future uncertain contingencies. Consequently, even where the underlying activities involve substantial elements of skill, once participation is contingent upon staking money or money's worth on uncertain outcomes, the resultant transaction acquires the character of betting and gambling within the GST framework. 
• On the Constitutional Validity of the Levy: The Court held that the levy of GST on the supply of actionable claims arising from betting and gambling is constitutionally valid and does not transgress Articles 366(12) and 366(12A) of the Constitution. It further held that mere commercial hardship, reduction in profitability, or increase of tax incidence cannot by themselves render a fiscal measure unconstitutional. The levy is supported by statutory authority traceable to Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the CGST Act, and satisfies Article 265 of the Constitution. 
• On Actionable Claims and Consideration: The Court held that organised gaming and betting platforms create a commercial ecosystem within which participants acquire a contingent beneficial interest in moveable property involving uncertain future outcomes. Such contingent interest constitutes an "actionable claim" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, the amounts staked or otherwise appropriated towards participation in gameplay constitute consideration within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the GST Act. 
• On Online Game Operators as Suppliers: The Court held that online gaming activities involving pooled stakes and contingent price structures give rise to actionable claim interests constituting taxable supplies within the meaning of Section 7 of the GST Act. Online game operators are not mere intermediaries facilitating transactions inter se between participants but themselves constitute suppliers of such actionable claims. The concept of supply under Section 7 of CGST is not confined to mere transfer of pre-existing actionable claims but extends to other forms of supply under the statutory framework, including organised betting and gambling arrangements.

What is Goods and Services Tax (GST)? 

About:  

• Introduced by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2017, is a comprehensive indirect tax levied on the supply of goods and services in India. 
• It is a value-added tax (VAT) that replaced multiple indirect taxes previously levied by the Centre and States. 

Key Features: 

• Dual GST Structure: Includes Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST); Integrated GST (IGST) is applicable for inter-state transactions. 
• GST Council: It is the primary body for GST policymaking and rate decisions. 
  • The GST Council is a joint forum of the Centre and the states. 
  • It was set up by the President as per Article 279A (1) of the amended Constitution. 

Members: 

• The members of the Council include the Union Finance Minister (chairperson), the Union Minister of State (Finance) from the Centre. 
• Each state can nominate a minister in-charge of finance or taxation or any other minister as a member. 

Functions: 

• The Council, according to Article 279, is meant to “make recommendations to the Union and the states on important issues related to GST, like the goods and services that may be subjected or exempted from GST, model GST Laws” 
• Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN): help taxpayers in India to prepare, file returns, make payments of indirect tax liabilities and do other compliances. 
• Threshold Exemption: Small businesses with turnover below a certain limit are exempt from GST. This makes compliance easier and protects micro enterprises from excessive paperwork.

Benefits of GST: 

• Destination-Based Tax: Collected where goods/services are consumed, benefiting businesses with better cash flow and working capital. 
• Ease of Doing Business: Technology-driven, minimal human interface, simplifies compliance, refunds, and registration. 
• Boost to Make in India: Makes domestic goods competitive nationally and internationally. 
• Exports: Supplies of goods or services, or both, to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) are treated as zero-rated under GST, with quick refunds, thereby promoting international trade and improving the balance of payments. 
• Revenue & Compliance: Expands tax base, increases government revenue, improves transparency, and enhances GDP by 1.5–2%. 
• Achievement of GST: In 2024–25, GST recorded its highest-ever gross collection of Rs 22.08 lakh crore, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 9.4 percent. The average monthly collection stood at Rs 1.84 lakh crore.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, (2026), held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is empowered to undertake a limited inquiry into an individual's citizenship for the purpose of determining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll, but that such a determination cannot be treated as conclusive on the question of citizenship. 

• The judgment was delivered while upholding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The Court further directed that all cases of persons whose names were deleted from the 2003 Bihar electoral rolls on citizenship grounds must be referred within four weeks to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for adjudication.

What was the Background of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2026) Case? 

• The Election Commission of India undertook a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, during which it scrutinised the citizenship status of certain individuals for the purpose of determining their eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. 
• The exercise was challenged before the Supreme Court, inter alia on the ground that the ECI lacked the power to examine citizenship, a question reserved for adjudication by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. 
• The petitioners contended that the Commission's scrutiny of citizenship status during the SIR exercise was beyond its constitutional and statutory mandate. 
• The Supreme Court was called upon to determine the scope of the ECI's power to examine citizenship in the course of preparing and revising electoral rolls, and the legal consequences of any such determination.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the ECI's Power to Examine Citizenship: The Court held that the ECI's power to examine citizenship flows from its constitutional responsibility to maintain accurate electoral rolls and ensure that only eligible persons are included. The Commission is empowered, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, to undertake a limited inquiry into citizenship for the purpose of satisfying itself as to eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. However, such an inquiry is confined strictly to electoral consequences and does not amount to a formal adjudication of citizenship under the Citizenship Act. 
• On the Limited and Non-Final Nature of ECI's Determination: The Court held that the ECI's assessment is prima facie and contextual in nature. Any action taken by the Commission pursuant to such scrutiny affects only the person's entitlement to be included in the electoral roll and their right to participate in the electoral process. The Commission's finding cannot extinguish or conclusively determine a person's citizenship status, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act. 
• On the Mandatory Referral to Competent Authority: To safeguard against the ECI assuming a final role in citizenship adjudication, the Court directed that where the Commission is not satisfied that a person fulfils the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll on citizenship grounds, it must refer the matter to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Court further directed that the competent authority must decide such cases after issuing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, or local body elections, whichever is earlier. 
• On Citizenship as a Condition Precedent for Enrolment: Referring to Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Court noted that only citizens have been conferred with the right to vote, making citizenship a condition precedent for enrolment. The Commission, therefore, cannot discharge its obligation to maintain a valid electoral roll without satisfying itself that persons included therein meet this threshold requirement. The Court drew a clear distinction between the ECI's limited electoral-purpose inquiry and the formal determination of citizenship by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act. 
• On Judicial Review of ECI's Inquiry: The Court emphasised that the entirety of the ECI's inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes remains amenable to judicial review, thereby ensuring that the inquiry is conducted in accordance with law and within the bounds of procedural fairness.

What is Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950? 

Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: Disqualifications for Registration in an Electoral Roll: 

• Citizenship Requirement: A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if they are not a citizen of India. 
• Unsound Mind: A person shall be disqualified if they have been declared to be of unsound mind by a competent court. 
• Corrupt Practices and Electoral Offences: A person shall be disqualified if they stand disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections. 
• Effect on Existing Entries: The name of any person disqualified under this section shall not be included in any electoral roll, and if already included, shall be struck off from such roll. 
• No Deprivation Without Opportunity: No person's name shall be removed from the electoral roll on the ground of disqualification without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.