No federal money-gaming licence fee exists (online money games are prohibited). Surviving state regimes: Nagaland charged INR 50,000 one-time application + INR 1,000,000/game/year for the first three years (doubling to INR 2,000,000 thereafter), or INR 5,000,000/year for a bouquet, plus 0.5% GGR royalty. Goa imposes casino-specific levies and per-entry fees.
Jurisdictions › India › Licence fees
India · Question 04 of 11
India Gambling — Licence fees: What do the licences cost?
Unfavourable · Probable · Not reviewed · 3 post-review updates · Not reviewed · Back to full India report →
Key section parameters
| Jurisdiction | India (IN) |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Recorded in register |
| Favourability | Unfavourable |
| Confidence | Probable |
| Review status | Not reviewed · 3 post-review updates · Not reviewed |
| Last collected | 4 Nov 2026 |
Summary answer
No federal money-gaming licence fee exists (online money games are prohibited). Surviving state regimes: Nagaland charged INR 50,000 one-time application + INR 1,000,000/game/year for the first three years (doubling to INR 2,000,000 thereafter), or INR 5,000,000/year for a bouquet, plus 0.5% GGR roy…
Not reviewed Information added after the 29 Jul 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed.
Not reviewed Read update
Cost-to-operate is effectively moot for the real-money gaming segment given its outright prohibition under PROGA 2025, but the retrospective tax dimension remains materially relevant for operators with historical India exposure. The Supreme Court has upheld a retrospective 28 percent Goods and Services Tax applied to the full face value of bets placed, rather than to gross gaming revenue, a substantially more punitive basis than a GGR-based tax. Industry press estimates the aggregate sector-wide exposure from this retrospective ruling at approximately USD 14 billion, though this figure is press-sourced rather than officially confirmed. This retrospective liability attaches to prior operating conduct regardless of an operator's current market status, and represents the dominant cost consideration for this jurisdiction going forward.
Not reviewed Read update
The Supreme Court's ruling in DGGI v Gameskraft, delivered 27 May 2026, upheld a retrospective 28% Goods and Services Tax on the full face value of stakes and deposits, rather than the narrower platform-commission basis the industry had argued for. This confirmed the restoration of a show-cause notice understood to be approximately ₹21,000 crore against a single operator group and reinstated an estimated industry-wide exposure of up to ₹1.5 trillion. This is a durable ruling with retrospective effect, meaning the cost-to-operate exposure attaches to historical conduct and is not confined to the ongoing prohibition. There is no forward compliance-lift picture for the now-prohibited real-money vertical to narrate.
Not reviewed Read update
The Supreme Court's Gameskraft ruling constitutionally validated 28% GST on the full face value of stakes and deposits under Rule 31A of the CGST Rules, applicable irrespective of whether the underlying game is one of skill or chance. This confirmed ruling forecloses the tax-minimisation argument operators previously relied upon and upholds cumulative retrospective demand exceeding INR 1 lakh crore. Commentary notes the levy is now largely academic specifically for online money games because the activity itself is prohibited outright, removing any lawful taxable supply going forward, though retrospective liability litigation over historical conduct continues to represent a severe cost exposure for any operator with prior India-facing activity. For e-sports, a single uncertain-confidence source suggests a materially lighter approximately 18% GST on platform commission rather than 28% on stakes, offering a meaningfully different cost profile for that carve-out if borne out.