HT MEDIA LIMITED versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 16-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 904 : 2026 INSC 66
HT Media Limited 
v. 
Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods and  
Service Tax
(Civil Appeal No(s). 23525-23526 of 2017)
16 January 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the fee paid by the appellant to the personalities/speakers, 
through their booking agents, is liable to Service Tax under the 
reverse charge mechanism, more particularly under the taxable 
category of “Event Management Service” u/ss.65(40) and 65(41) 
r/w. s.65(105)(zu) respectively of Chapter V of the Finance Act.
Headnotes†
Finance Act, 1994 – s.65(105)(zu) r/w. ss.65(40) and 65(41) – 
The appellant assessee conducted annual Hindustan Times 
Leadership Summit (the 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 – 
Show cause notices were issued under the Finance Act inter 
alia proposing to impose Service Tax on fees paid to the 
speakers through the booking agents under the category of 
“Event Management Service” – The Commissioner vide the 
Order-in-Original dated 13.02.2014, the demand of Service 
Tax invoking the extended period of limitation u/s.73 of the 
Finance Act with interest and penalty, was confirmed – 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” – Correctness:
Held: The agreements of the assessee with the agents are part 
of the record of the present appeals – A bare perusal of these 
agreements would indicate that they are in the nature of booking 
a particular speaker for the Summit – The tenor of the contracts 
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
905
HT Media Limited v.  
Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods and Service Tax
and the declaration given by the agents clearly indicate 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 – Such services cannot 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 – The presence of the speaker is 
essential for the event cannot be disputed – The speaker does 
not plan, promote, organize or present the event – Thus, the 
speaker, is neither an “event manager” nor does he provide an 
“event management service” – Similarly, the booking agent who 
merely books the speaker also acts in the capacity of an agent or 
representative for agreeing to the terms of the speakers’ presence 
at the event – Participation in the event cannot be considered as 
management of the event – This precisely is the fundamental error 
committed by the revenue as well as by the Tribunal while imposing 
Service Tax on the service in question under the category of “event 
management service” – Even if this test of interpretation of sales 
tax statutes is applied for interpreting the clause for imposing 
Service Tax, the contract in question cannot be considered to be 
commonly understood as that of event management – Thus, the 
impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is hereby 
set aside. [Paras 37, 39, 41, 48, 49]
Case Law Cited
Shiv Steels v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC Online SC 2006 – relied 
on.
International Merchandising Company, LLC (Earlier known as 
International Merchandising Corporation) v. Commissioner, 
Service Tax, New Delhi [2022] 8 SCR 872 : (2023) 3 SCC 641 – 
distinguished.
Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 	
[2024] 2 SCR 1001 : (2024) 8 SCC 608; UOI v. Future Gaming 
Solutions Private Limited [2025] 2 SCR 756 : (2025) 5 SCC 
906
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
601; Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh 
[1967] 2 SCR 720 : 1967 SCC Online SC 154; Indo International 
Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981] 3 SCR 294

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.