SC stays ₹5,712-crore GST notice sent to Paytm-owned gaming platform First Games
The Supreme Court has granted a stay on a ₹ 5,712-crore GST notice sent to fintech firm One97 Communications-owned real money gaming platform First Games, a regulatory filing said on Saturday.
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, New Delhi had issued a show cause notice (SCN) to First Games in April.
"We hereby inform you that First Games has informed us on May 24, 2025 at 10:44 am (IST) that in the writ petition ...filed by First Games challenging the said SCN, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has on May 23, 2025 stayed the proceedings of the SCN," the regulatory filing said.
One97 Communications, which owns Paytm brand said the tax matter is an industry-wide issue and not limited to First Games and the matter is being heard by the apex
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Mohali flat buyers get relief from Supreme Court
In a key ruling that balances homebuyer rights and builder liability, the Supreme Court has upheld a refund with 8% compounded interest to two buyers who pulled out of a delayed Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) housing project, but turned down their plea to recover the home loan interest they had paid. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the ruling last week in a dispute stemming from GMADA's 'Purab Premium Apartments' project in Sector 88, Mohali. The buyers, Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar, had booked 2-BHK flats in 2012 and deposited ₹50.46 lakh and ₹41.29 lakh, respectively. They were promised possession by May 2015 under a Letter of Intent (LOI), which also assured a refund with 8% interest in case of delay. Citing slow progress and major deviations from the promised layout and amenities, the buyers sought refunds in 2016. When GMADA resisted, they moved the Punjab State Consumer Commission, which in 2018 ordered GMADA to return their money with 8% interest, ₹60,000 each for mental harassment, ₹30,000 each in litigation costs, and the interest they had paid on their housing loans. This decision was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2019. However, GMADA contested the direction to pay for buyers' loan interest in the Supreme Court. In its verdict, the court reaffirmed that delayed possession entitles buyers to a refund with reasonable interest. 'Where the development authority… does not deliver possession… the allottee is entitled for refund… with reasonable interest,' the bench said, citing its earlier ruling in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank. The bench also quoted GDA v. Balbir Singh, saying compensation must vary with the facts of the case: 'In cases where monies are being simply returned… the compensation would necessarily have to be higher.' However, the judges ruled out compensation under multiple heads. Citing DLF Homes Panchkula v. D.S. Dhanda, they said, 'There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages.' Justice Karol observed, 'The 8% interest awarded… is the compensation for being deprived of the investment… No amount of interest on the loan taken by the respondents could have been awarded.' The court allowed GMADA's appeal in part—striking down the loan interest component but upholding the rest of the relief granted by the consumer commissions. GMADA will not have to deposit any additional sum, and the money already with the State Commission will be disbursed to the buyers.
Mint
43 minutes ago
- Mint
Gold prices today in your city: Check prices in Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, New Delhi and Kolkata on June 12
Gold, silver prices in your city, June 12: Gold rates are in the green today as US President Donald Trump asserted that he would send out tariff letters to trading partners within two weeks, and due to geopolitical tensions in the middle-east. Buying interest increased after the US ordered some embassy staff to depart Baghdad and allowed military families to leave the Middle East, after Iran threatened to attack US bases if talks over its nuclear program fell through. The yellow metal, which reached an all-time high in April, has also been supported by increased buying by the US Federal Reserve. Overall, experts feel that gold and silver have emerged as the safe haven investment for investors to safeguard their portfolios in volatile markets. Silver prices have held above the ₹ 1 lakh/kg mark for the past week. And in terms of returns, over the past year along, gold cost has jumped 30 per cent, returned 15 per cent CAGR since 2001; and since 1995, has beaten inflation by over 2-4 per cent, data shows. Prices opened higher/lower today at 7.10 am on June 12. The MCX gold index was at ₹ 97,234/10 gm, the official website showed. Meanwhile, MCX silver prices were at ₹ 1,06,726/kg, it showed. Further, 24-carat gold was priced at ₹ 97,300/10 gm, according to data on the Indian Bullion Association (IBA) at 7.10 am on June 12. Further, 22-carat gold price was at ₹ 89,129/10 gms. And, silver prices today are at ₹ 1,07,090/kg (Silver 999 Fine), as per the IBA website. So, check here gold prices and silver rates in your city today on June 12 — Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, and Chennai. Notably, for retail customers, jewellers may add making charges, taxes and GST to the bill, which could hike the final price for you. Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
A step closer to fairness in property laws
Back in 2022, the refusal of a sub-registrar to register a sales deed, who based the decision under provision of Rule 55 A (i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules led the Supreme Court, which was approached after the High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the sub-registrar's decision, to come up with certain ifs and buts as regards property registrations. This is aimed at shedding light about many misconceptions that stemmed from diverse interpretations of the existing laws. On examining the validity of Rule 55A (i) vis-à-vis Registration Act 1908, the apex court found that it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act. The court made it clear that if the documents were executed legally and the executant's identity was duly verified and proven, the registration process could be gone ahead. It contended that registration per se would not entitle legal ownership, which, once and for all, settled the long-held opinion that registration marked ownership. In its most recent ruling, the Supreme Court stated that registration alone does not validate ownership. This is a timely move as many people try to take advantage of the wrong interpretations and myriad loopholes that were between the lines. Providing thorough clarity on this crucial issue that impacts millions of people, the apex court stated that getting ownership rights involves appropriate documentation and legal validation. It is believed in legal circles that this will impact property owners, realtors and legal practices. It asserted that for resolving property disputes and ownership rights, legal adjudication was imperative, including those who have acquired property through various means like inheritance and purchase, towards which the individuals must stay abreast of property laws. Registration at best can support an individual's claim, but he or she cannot claim legal possession of the property. Meanwhile, it is only legitimate ownership that assures legal authority to use, manage, and transfer the property. Calling for a more transparent approach towards addressing this issue, the ruling, in a way, makes for a potential shift in the interpretation of property law, away from what has been presumed all these years. A unique feature of the development is that once this legal framework comes into effect, the scope for misappropriations would be reduced gradually, especially when it comes to ascertaining land value with the sub-registrar office having no say on such matters. The onus is on the property owners to seek the help of legal professionals as regards establishing their ownership, which goes beyond mere registration. While declaring Rule 55A (i) as ultra vires and invalid, the Supreme Court clarified that a sub-registrar would have no adjudicatory power to verify or refuse registration of a document based on the title or ownership, which can only be settled and validated by courts. The new ruling is bound to call for a comprehensive reassessment of the property laws that are prevalent in the country. As an initiative that will usher in reforms that are long overdue, this development can take a step closer to achieving a more transparent legal infrastructure. Taken under any yardstick, one can get clarity on the existing distinctions between administrative registration and legal ownership, which, in the long run, can ensure fairness of property laws in the country.
