Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-023525-023526 – 2017 |
| Diary Number | 34384/2017 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding Precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Tax / Taxation |
| Questions of Law | Whether fees paid to overseas speakers through booking agents fall under “Event Management Service” (Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65(40), 65(41)) or under another taxable category? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant organized an annual leadership summit and engaged foreign speakers via booking agents; show-cause notices alleged Service Tax under Event Management Service; CESTAT affirmed normal-limitation demand; appeals followed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and tribunals interpreting Service Tax classification under the Finance Act |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and appellate tribunals in taxation and indirect-tax matters |
| Overrules | Classification of speaker-booking services as “Event Management Service” under Section 65(105)(zu) |
| Distinguishes | International Merchandising Company LLC v. Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi, (2023) 3 SCC 641 |
| Follows | Shiv Steels v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC Online SC 2006 on strict interpretation of taxing statutes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that “event management” covers venue, décor, publicity, stage shows, artist management, not mere procurement of speakers.
- Booking agents who arrange speaker appearances do not qualify as “event managers” under Section 65(41).
- Emphasizes strict literal interpretation of taxing provisions; no tax by analogy.
- Distinguishes International Merchandising Co. LLC where the personality was ancillary; here speakers are the event’s core.
- Common-parlance test and CBIC Circular (08.08.2002) restrict the scope of Event Management Service.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Positive-List Regime: Prior to 01.07.2012, Service Tax applied only to services expressly defined in Section 65(105).
- Statutory Definitions:
- Section 65(40): “‘event management’ means any service provided in relation to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation….”
- Section 65(41): “‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in providing any service in relation to event management….”
- Section 65(105)(zu): taxable service by an event manager in relation to event management.
- CBIC Circular: Event management entails managing venue, décor, sound, lighting, publicity, ticketing, artists, stage shows, etc.
- Contract Analysis: Agreements with booking agents defined only speaker appearance, travel, accommodation and speech particulars—no event-organization activities.
- Strict Interpretation: Taxing statute must be read strictly; if service falls outside statutory definitions, no tax. (Shiv Steels)
- Common Parlance: As in sales-tax cases (Jaswant Singh; Indo International), event management in ordinary parlance excludes isolated speaker booking.
- Distinction from International Merchandising: There, celebrity appearance was ancillary; here speakers formed the event itself, but procurement alone is not event management.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (HT Media Limited)
- Agents were merely speaker booking agents, not event managers.
- Contracts did not cover venue management, publicity, stage shows, décor, or consultation on event organization.
- Service should be classified as “manpower recruitment or supply agency service” under Section 65(105)(k), as held in International Merchandising Co. LLC.
Revenue (Principal Commissioner, GST)
- Procuring speakers is integral to event planning and presentation; booking agents render event management service.
- No principal-agent relationship absolves agents; they contract independently to ensure speaker appearance.
- Section 65(105)(zu) has a wide scope—any service in relation to event management, including speaker procurement.
Factual Background
Between October 2009 and March 2012, the appellant organized its annual leadership summit and engaged foreign speakers (e.g., Tony Blair, Al Gore) via booking agents. The Department issued show-cause notices alleging Service Tax under Event Management Service (Section 65(105)(zu)), invoking reverse-charge for fees paid through agents. The Commissioner’s order confirmed tax under extended limitation; CESTAT struck extended-period demand but upheld normal-period tax as Event Management Service. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 65(40): Defines “event management” as planning, promotion, organizing, presentation of events, including consultation.
- Section 65(41): Defines “event manager” as one engaged in providing any service in relation to event management.
- Section 65(105)(zu): Taxes services by an event manager in relation to event management.
- Section 65(105)(k): Taxes services by a manpower recruitment or supply agency for recruitment or supply of manpower.
- Section 66A: Reverse-charge mechanism for services provided from outside India.
- Section 73: Recovery of unpaid or short-paid Service Tax.
- CBIC Circular (08.08.2002): Clarifies services covered under Event Management Service.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict interpretation of taxing statutes as in Shiv Steels v. State of Assam
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Distinguishes International Merchandising Company LLC v. Commissioner, Service Tax (2023)