Contracts for booking speakers held not to constitute "event management" service for tax purposes; appeal allowed

Whether contracts for booking speakers amounted to "event management service" under Section 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act (pre-1.7.2012): SC held that taxability depends on whether the service falls within the statutory definitions of "event management" and "event manager" (Sections 65(40), 65(41)). The Court rejected revenue's reliance on principal-agent character or the centrality of speakers, applied the rule of strict construction of fiscal statutes, relied on a contemporaneous circular and the common-parlance test to construe "event management" as planning/organizing an event (not mere speaker booking). The booking contracts therefore do not constitute event management service, and the appeal is allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether fees paid by the appellant to foreign speakers through booking agents for the Summit are taxable under the reverse charge mechanism as "Event Management Service" within Sections 65(40), 65(41) and 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period October 2009 to March 2012.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory definitions and scheme applicable during the disputed period when Service Tax applied only to the positive list of taxable services. Relevant provisions considered include Section 66, Section 66A, Section 65(40), Section 65(41), Section 65(105)(zu), Section 65A and Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court analysed the contracts and declarations on record and contrasted the defined scope of "event management" and the role of an "event manager" with the nature of services rendered by the booking agents, which consisted of procuring and booking speakers and detailing travel, accommodation and appearance commitments. The Court applied the principle that taxing statutes must be strictly construed and applied the common parlance understanding of "event management" (as reflected in the CBIC Circular dated 08.08.2002), concluding that event management encompasses planning, promotion, organising or presentation of an event in the sense of managing or organising the event, and does not extend to individual contracts for booking participants. The Court distinguished International Merchandising Company LLC on facts, finding the speakers and their appearances integral to the Summit such that the contracts were for booking speakers, not for managing the event.

Conclusion: The fees paid to the speakers through booking agents do not fall within the statutory definition of "Event Management Service" under Sections 65(40), 65(41) and 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act, 1994; the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee and the Tribunal's order affirming the demand under the category of Event Management Service is set aside.

---