CST Delhi Vs Perfect Realtions Ltd (CESTAT Delhi)
The respondent arranges press conferences, interviews, press release, etc. The stand of the Revenue is that such activities will fall under the category of “Event Management Services” w.e.f. 01.10.2002 and further under the BAS with effect from 01.07.2003. There is no dispute that the activities of the appellant are squarely covered within the definition of “Public Relation Services”, which was made taxable w.e.f. 01.05.2006. The stand of the respondent is that a particular service which has been newly introduced cannot be made taxable prior to the date of its introduction. In the case of M/s Indian National Ship Owners’ Association Vs Union of India-2009 (14) STR 289 (Mom,), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as follows:
“38. If the Department’s contention is accepted that would mean that the activities of the members of the 1st petitioner are covered by entry (zzzy) and entry (zzzj). Such a result is difficult to comprehend because entry (zzzzj) is not a specie of what is covered by entry (zzzy). Introduction of new entry and inclusion of certain services in that entry would presuppose that there was no earlier entry and inclusion of certain services in that entry would presupposed that there was no earlier entry covering the said services. Therefore, prior to introduction of entry (zzzz), the services rendered by the members of the Ist petitioner were not taxable. Creation of new entry is not by way of amending the earlier entry. It is not a carve out of the earlier entry. Therefore, the services rendered by the member of the Ist petitioner cannot be brought to tax under that entry.”
The said decision has also been upheld by the Supreme Court reported as 2011(21) STR 3 SC. The ld Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, has also examined the facts and clearly recorded that the activity of the respondent does not fall within the categories of Event Management Service as well as Business Auxiliary Service. After carefully considering his discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the same.
