Bombay HC: Dream 11 is a game of skill, not gambling; rejects PIL against its format

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY on 17/06/ 2019,in Gurdeep Singh Sachar v UOI & others, had dismissed the PIL field by the petitioner which claimed it was encouraging betting and gambling.

The cricket-centric gaming platform requires participants to choose their team of 11 and deposit an acknowledgement amount, which is then distributed among participants whose choice of players score the most points on game day.

. The court rejected the PIL in light of a Punjab HC judgement, and the SC, concurring that such games could not be deemed as gambling.

The petitioner  had been seeking for directions for initiating prosecution that was criminal in nature against the respondent  Company who had been allegedly practicing gambling/ betting/ wagering in the  mere disguise of Online Fanstasy Sports Gaming, thereby making it liable to be held under the  penal provisions of Public Gambling Act, 1867, followed by an alleged GST evasion that had to be paid  because the GST ACT and Rule 31A of CGST Rules, 2018.

FACTS:

The  petitioner  alleges that  players make various  online teams to playing  such fantasy games that is accessible on the  website for free of cost, although later people had to  pay from their pockets by luring them into making easy money and losing at the same time, hence making such fantasy games such as gambling/ betting/ wagering, being different forms of “gambling”, since  and such activities lead to ‘betting’ /’gambling’, just be governed by Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules, 2018.

It was held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana that such games of fantasy were exempted  from the penal provisions, in view of section 18 of 1867 Act, thereby upholding the right to profesison under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition  .

ISSUES:

(a) If   such activities lead to ‘Gambling’ \ ‘Betting’ ?

(b) If there lies a merit  in the allegation of violation of Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules, 2018 and erroneous classification ?

HELD:

It was held that as  CGST Act  does not permit Tax  upon such ‘actionable claim Online Fantasy Sports Gaming of the respondent  and since that being apart from lottery, betting and gambling, the said Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules 2018 cannot be read  for overriding the parent CGST Act, hence making the as not applicable. The Court further dismissing the PIL, held that as the Online Fantasy Sports Gaming of respondent  were not gambling services, hence the respondent is not in error nor is liable to pay GST ,thereby upholding the Petitioners case as fully untenable, misconceived and void  of merits and that the sport was entirely dependent upon the skill, knowledge and exercise perform and the skill and not rely upon the win ore loss of any team in world.

Read full Judgment here:

[embeddoc url=”https://legaldesire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Bombay-HC-Dismisses-PIL-Against-The-Fantasy-League.pdf” download=”all”]