https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381931 Online fantasy sports were treated as a game of skill because success depended predominantly on user judgment, knowledge and attention rather than chance; the activity therefore did not amount to gambling or betting. Once characterised that way, the pooled amount in escrow was treated as an actionable claim within Schedule III and outside the scope of supply, so the definition of consideration did not apply and Rule 31A(3) did not extend to fantasy sports or override the parent Act. The platform fee classification was also upheld, and the GST misclassification and evasion allegations failed. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381931 Online fantasy sports were treated as a game of skill because success depended predominantly on user judgment, knowledge and attention rather than chance; the activity therefore did not amount to gambling or betting. Once characterised that way, the pooled amount in escrow was treated as an actionable claim within Schedule III and outside the scope of supply, so the definition of consideration did not apply and Rule 31A(3) did not extend to fantasy sports or override the parent Act. The platform fee classification was also upheld, and the GST misclassification and evasion allegations failed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381931