( 1 ) ). The petitioner, an advertising agency challenges the vires of the provisions of Secs. 65 (16) (d) and 66 (2) of Chapter V of Finance act, 1994 as amended. By these provisions, a service tax is imposed on advertising service. The challenge is based upon Art. 14, 19 (1) (a) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) ). S. 65 (16) (d) defines "taxable service" to mean. . . any service provided to a client by an advertising agency in relation to advertisements in any manner. Section 66 is the charging section which provides that there shall be charged a service tax at the rate of 5% of the value of the taxable service. Section 67 provides for valuation of taxable service for charging the service tax and clause (d) provides that in relation to service provided by an advertising agency to a client, the gross amount charged by such agency from the client shall be for services in relation to the advertising.

( 3 ) ). It is submitted that advertising service is a skill of expression and there is a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution and, therefore, the tax on this freedom of speech and expression is violative of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) ). Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of express Newspaper v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578. In Para 142, the supreme Court has summarised the principles relating to the freedom of speech and expression and observed in Para 143 that no measure can be enacted which would have the effect of imposing a pre-censorship, curtailing the circulation or restricting the choice of employment or unemployment in the editorial force and such a measure would certainly tend to infringe the freedom of speech and expression and would, therefore, be liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. However, in Para 144, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the press is not immune from the ordinary forms of taxation for support of the Government nor from the application of general laws relating to industrial relations. Therefore, merely because there is a tax on press or any activity of speech or expression, it does not necessarily become violative of freedom of expression. Similarly, in the case of Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, air 1986 SC 515, it has been held that the newspaper industry has not been granted exemption from taxation in express terms, and negativing the argument based on art. 19 (a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that merely because the government has power to levy taxes, the freedom of press would not be totally lost. The Supreme Court observed that while there can be no tax on the freedom of expression, tax can be levied on profession, occupation, trade, industry or business and hence the tax was leviable on newspaper industries also. It is only when tax measure stifles the freedom of expression, it invites interference of the Court. It is, thus, clear and well settled that a tax on activity which may be of expression, it not immune from tax.

( 5 ) ). In the present case, the rate of tax is 5% of the gross amount charged by the advertising agency from the client for services in relation to advertising. This cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable. In fact, it is on the lower side, and as such could hardly be a subject -matter for the Court to decide unless it assumes exproprietory proportion. The rate of tax depends on many socio-economic parameters and value judgments of which the Legislature is the best Judge. The Court has very little scope to interfere on the rate of tax. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of violation of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution.

( 6 ) ). There is no merit in the contention that there is a vague and arbitrary classification of commercial and non-commercial advertising and, therefore, it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Commercial and non-commercial are wellknown concepts and