Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Booking Speakers Not Event Management Service
Case Details: HT Media Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South (2026) 38 Centax 159 (S.C.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • J.B. PARDIWALA & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
  • Shri Karan Bharihoke, AOR, for the Appellant.
  • S/Shri V.C. Bharathi, Adv. &  Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The applicant entered into contracts with agents for the booking of foreign-based eminent speakers, specifying the modalities of each speaker’s visit and consideration. It was submitted that the contracts were for booking of speakers and did not involve management of the event. It was noted that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had previously held that the assessee was liable to pay Service Tax under ‘event management service’ for the period covered within the normal limitation. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court. 

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the contracts with booking agents could not be treated as ‘event management service’ under Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65(40) and 65(41) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court observed that the speaker does not plan, promote, organise, or present the event, and is therefore neither an ‘event manager’ nor does it provide ‘event management service’. Similarly, the booking agent, who merely books the speaker, acts only as an agent or representative agreeing to the terms of the speaker’s presence. Participation in the event alone cannot be considered management of the event. Consequently, the levy of Service Tax on contracts for booking of speakers under the category of ‘event management service’ failed. 

List of Cases Cited 

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026

Excess Excise Duty Refund After 11 Years Attracts 12% Interest | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 12, 2026

[Opinion] Central Excise Act, 2025 Introduces New Tobacco Duties

Excise & Service Tax • News • Legal Beacon

January 9, 2026