Contracts For Booking Speakers For Event Not Event Management Contracts: Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹60 Lakh Service Tax Imposed On HT Media

The appeals before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in Service Tax Appeals holding that the appellants were liable to pay Service Tax under the category of “event management service” for the period covered within the normal limitation.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “The expressions ‘event management’ and ‘event managers’ is commonly understood in the sense of appointing someone to manage or organize the event. Individual contract for booking of persons required for participation in the event are not commonly understood as “event management” contracts.”

AOR Karan Bharihoke represented the Appellant while Advocate V.C. Bharathi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant assessee conducted the annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit (Summit). Speakers were invited from outside India to address the Summit. The appellant entered into contracts with booking agents such as the Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry Walker Agency to book speakers such as Tony Blair, Jerry Linenger and Al Gore. Show cause notices were issued under the Finance Act, 1994 proposing to impose Service Tax on fees paid to the speakers through the booking agents under the category of “Event Management Service” under Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65(40) and 65(41) respectively of Chapter V of the Finance Act by invoking the extended period of limitation.

The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner and ultimately vide the Order-in-Original, the demand of Service Tax invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act with interest and penalty, was confirmed for the period of demand between October, 2009 and March, 2012. The revenue implication was to the tune of Rs 60,56,180. The appellant assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal set aside the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the demand under the normal period of limitation came to be affirmed by the Tribunal under the category of “Event Management Service”. In such circumstances, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the provisions of the Act, the Bench noted that the essential ingredients for levy of Service Tax during the Period of Dispute on any activity were that the activity should be service provided in India by one person to another for a consideration and such service must fall under any of the defined taxable category of service i.e., under the positive definition of taxable services under the Finance Act and made liable to Service Tax as taxable service under various clauses of Section 65(105). The Bench explained that for levy of Service Tax, taxable category of services of the Finance Act under which such service is liable to Service Tax has to be determined and proposed in the show cause notice issued by the Department. In case of taxable service provided from outside India to a person in India, the recipient of such service is liable to Service Tax under the reverse charge mechanism, it noted.

The Bench made it clear that during the period prior to July 1, 2012, the Service Tax was leviable only on the positive list of services as enumerated in Section 65(105) of Chapter V of the Finance Act. “If the services strictly fall within such list, then they are taxable and if not, then no tax can be imposed on such services”, it added. As per the Bench, the only clause of the taxable list of services which was being invoked by the revenue in the present case for imposing tax was Section 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act and the impugned levy of Service Tax could be sustained only if the service in question fell within the four corners of “event management” by an “event manager”.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the tenor of the contracts and the declaration given by the agents indicated that the services rendered by such agents to the assessee were in the nature of booking the speakers for the event to be organized by the assessee. The contracts were entered into with the agents, qua each speaker laying down the modalities of his/her visit and consideration for the same. It was further noted that such services could not be equated with “event management service” which has been statutorily defined to mean “any service provided in relation to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of any arts, entertainment, business, sports, marriage or any other event and includes any consultation provided in this regard”. “The contract of the asseessee with the booking agents was not for “management of an event” but for booking of the speaker”, it added.

The Bench thus concluded that the contract in question could not be considered to be commonly understood as that of event management. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

Cause Title: HT Media Limited v. Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods and Service Tax (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 66)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Karan Bharihoke

Respondent: Advocate V.C. Bharathi, AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker

Click here to read/download Judgment