Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in HT Media Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017, 2026 INSC 66, decided on 16.01.2025, addressed the distinction between administrative facilitation and statutory “Event Management Services” under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court set aside a CESTAT order that had categorised the booking of foreign speakers through overseas agents as a taxable event management service. By distinguishing “participation” from “management”, the judgment provides clarity on the taxability of specialised consultancy and representation services under the erstwhile service tax regime.
Background of the Matter
The civil appeals were instituted by HT Media Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) against the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”), contesting the imposition of service tax under the category of “Event Management Service” on fees paid to international speakers. The Appellant organises the annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, an event featuring eminent personalities. To secure the presence of speakers, the Appellant entered into specific contracts with overseas booking agents. The role of these agents was restricted to negotiating and executing contracts that laid down the activities of the speakers’ visits, including travel, accommodation, speaking schedules, and interaction topics. The Revenue Department, however, issued show-cause notices proposing to levy service tax on these payments under the reverse charge mechanism.
The Appellant, aggrieved by the CESTAT’s affirmation of this demand during the normal period of limitation, invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. They contended that the agents were merely lecture booking representatives who did not manage the venue, sets, security, or publicity, and therefore did not satisfy the cumulative statutory requirements of an “Event Manager”. The Appellant further argued that the arrangement was one of booking rather than management and that the Revenue’s interpretation stretched the definition of taxable services beyond the strict letter of the law.
Issues Before The Supreme Court Of India
- Whether the fees paid to booking agents for securing the presence of speakers at a summit are liable to Service Tax under the category of “Event Management Service”?
- Whether a speaker or their booking agent can be legally classified as an “Event Manager”?
- Whether the presence of a speaker, even if essential to the event, converts their booking into “Event Management”?
Contentions Of The Parties
The Appellant argued that the booking agents were merely lecture booking representatives of the speakers and not “event managers” within the meaning of the Finance Act. They contended that for Section 65(105)(zu) to apply, the service provider must be an event manager engaged in planning, promotion, organisation, or presentation of an event. The Appellant submitted that the agents did not manage the venue, sets, sound, security, or invitations, nor did they provide any consultation regarding the summit. To support their claim, they relied on International Merchandising Company, LLC v. Commissioner, 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C.), arguing that if a service falls under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, it cannot simultaneously be classified as ‘Event Management Service’. Furthermore, they cited Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 8 SCC 608, and UOI v. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2025 (392) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), to stress that the Tribunal had erred in affirming the demand under the normal period of limitation. In response, the Respondent argued that the booking agents were independent contractors rather than mere representatives of the speakers. They contended that a principal-agent relationship was not established because the contracts explicitly distanced the agents from the speakers’ individual actions and lacked express authorisation from the speakers to conclude contracts on their behalf. The Respondent asserted that the speakers themselves constituted the “event” and by ensuring their presence for a consideration, the booking agents rendered a service integral to the planning and presentation of the summit. Consequently, they maintained that the agents satisfied the definition of “event manager” under Section 65(41). The Respondent also argued that the decision in International Merchandising Company, LLC was inapplicable to the present case, maintaining that the fee paid was not a direct payment to the speaker but a payment for the procurement of the speaker’s service.
Decision and Findings
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Tribunal’s order, ruling that the fee paid for booking speakers is not liable to Service Tax under the “Event Management Service” category. The Court observed that the agreements were for the procurement of specific speakers for the Summit, covering their travel, accommodation, and the modalities of their lectures or Q&A sessions. It was held that such services cannot be equated with the statutory definition of “event management” which requires the planning, promotion, or presentation of an event. The Court clarified that while the speaker’s presence is essential, the speaker does not plan or organize the event and, therefore, is not an “event manager”. Similarly, the booking agent, who merely acts as a representative to agree on the terms of the speaker’s presence, does not manage the event itself. Further, the court stated the principle of strict interpretation of taxing statutes, asserting that fiscal liability must be determined by the strict letter of the law. The Supreme Court noted that tax cannot be imposed by inference or analogy if the case does not fall strictly within the statute. The Court also found the Appellant’s reliance on the CBEC Circular dated 08.08.2002 to be well-founded, as the circular clarifies that an event manager’s role involves managing venues, sets, security, and invitations, tasks that neither the speakers nor their agents performed in this case. The Court applied the “common parlance test” concluding that in ordinary understanding, an event management contract involves appointing someone to organize the event as a whole, rather than entering individual contracts for the participation of speakers. Consequently, the Court held that the Revenue and the Tribunal committed an error in stretching the application of the taxing provision beyond its intended provisions.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The Supreme Court’s decision in HT Media Ltd. highlights an imperative principle of fiscal jurisprudence. Taxing statutes must be interpreted with precision. By rejecting the Revenue’s attempt to classify booking agents as “event managers”, the Court has drawn a clear line between the individual participants who constitute an event and the professional entities that manage its logistics. This distinction is vital in an era where global speakers are frequently engaged for summits. The ruling ensures that such engagements are not arbitrarily pulled into the service tax net simply because the participant’s role is integral to the event’ success. The judgment also highlights the judiciary’s reliance on common parlance and departmental clarifications to resolve classification disputes. By its reasoning in the 2002 CBEC Circular, the Court provided much-needed consistency, affirming that event management typically involves the physical and organisational orchestration of a venue. This ruling acts as a safeguard against administrative overreach, reminding tax authorities that they cannot expand the positive list of services through inference or analogy, even when the underlying activities are essential to a business operation.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com