Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 66
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 23525 - 23526 OF 2017
HT MEDIA LIMITED ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI
SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the
same, the challenge is also to the self-same judgment passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.01.16
15:15:23 IST
Reason:
Tribunal and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 1 of 29
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common
judgment and order.
2. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi (for short, the “ CESTAT ”) dated 31.08.2017 in Service Tax
Appeal Nos. 52881 & 52888 of 2014 respectively, by which the
appeals filed by the appellant herein came to be disposed by the
Tribunal holding that the appellants herein are liable to pay Service
Tax under the category of “event management service” for the period
covered within the normal limitation. At the same time, the Tribunal
also held that the demand of Service Tax in respect of management
consultancy service and business support service, and interest
liability for entries with reference to associated enterprise were not
sustainable in law.
FACTUAL MATRIX:-
3. The appellant assessee conducted annual Hindustan Times
Leadership Summit (hereinafter referred to as, “ the Summit ”).
Speakers were invited from outside India to address the Summit. The
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 2 of 29
appellant entered into contracts with booking agents such as the
Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry Walker Agency to book
speakers such as Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Jerry Linenger and Mr. Al Gore.
4. Show cause notices were issued under the Finance Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as “ 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” under
Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65(40) and 65(41) respectively
of Chapter V of the Finance Act by invoking the extended period of
limitation.
5. The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner
and ultimately vide the Order-in-Original dated 13.02.2014, the
demand of Service Tax invoking the extended period of limitation
under Section 73 of the Finance Act with interest and penalty, was
confirmed.
6. The appellant assessee being dissatisfied with the Order-in-
Original passed by the Commissioner referred to above, went in
appeal before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal set aside the
invocation of the extended period of limitation, the demand under the
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 3 of 29
normal period of limitation came to be affirmed by the Tribunal under
the category of “Event Management Service”.
7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here
before this Court with the present appeals.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-
8. Mr. Ashok Dhingra, the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a
serious error in passing the impugned order affirming the demand
under the normal period of limitation. It was argued vehemently that
no service could be said to have been provided by the agents to the
appellant.
9. The learned Counsel argued that there was no arrangement
between the appellant and the agents for providing of any service for
the Summit to the appellant. The agents, being lecture booking
agents of the speakers, dealt with the appellant on behalf of the
speakers.
10. It was further argued that the speakers, being senior politicians
and former heads of States could be booked only through their
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 4 of 29
respective agents, who negotiate & execute contracts, and collect an
appearance fee on behalf of the speakers. The agents were paid by
the speakers for the services rendered to the speakers, which fact has
been confirmed by both the Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry
Walker Agency respectively.
11. It was argued that for Section 65(40) and Section 65(105)(zu) of
the Finance Act respectively to apply, an activity must have the
following essential ingredients cumulatively to be taxable as service
under taxable category of Event Management thereof:
(a) The person providing the Service must be an Event Manager,
as defined in Section 65(41) read with the TRU Circular dated
08.08.2002.
(b) Such Event Manager should be engaged in providing service
to any person, and
(c) Such service should be in relation to event management, i.e.,
planning, promotion, organizing, or presentation of any arts,
entertainment, business, sports, marriage or any other event
and includes any consultation provided in this regard.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 5 of 29
12. The learned Counsel submitted that the TRU Circular dated
08.08.2002 clarified that Event Manager is a person who is engaged
in managing the venue for an event, including decoration of sets,
mandap, chair, table, barricades, sound, light video, electricals,
security, communication, invitations to the event/sale of tickets and
publicity of the event; & also has to manage stage show, artist,
musician, choreographers & other miscellaneous items of work for
holding of an event.
13. It was also argued that in the instant case the agents:
(a) were neither event managers, nor were engaged in providing
any service to the appellant. The agreements were signed by
them as lecture booking agents of the speakers, on their behalf;
(b) were not engaged in managing venue, decoration of sets,
barricades, sound, light, security, communication, sale of
tickets or publicity;
(c) had nothing to do with planning, promotion, organization, or
presentation of the Summit, and
(d) did not provide any consultation to the appellant qua the
Summit.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 6 of 29
14. In the last, it was argued that in the decision rendered in
International Merchandising Company, LLC (Earlier known as
International Merchandising Corporation) v. Commissioner,
Service Tax, New Delhi 2023 (3) SCC 641
reported in , this Court
has held, in an identical fact situation, that the service falls under
the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service,
classifiable under Section 65(105)(k). Consequently, the very same
service cannot be classified by the Revenue under Section 65(105)(zu)
as Event Management Services.
15. The learned Counsel in support of his aforesaid submissions
placed strong reliance on the following decisions:
(a) Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax reported in ( 2024) 8 SCC 608 .
(b) UOI v. Future Gaming Solutions Private Limited
reported in (2025) 5 SCC 601 .
16. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Counsel
prayed that there being merit in his appeals, those may be allowed
and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 7 of 29
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE:
17. On the other hand, Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, the
learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that the
primary contention of the appellant that the booking agents are the
agents of the speakers and there is no service contract between the
booking agents and the appellant, deserves to be rejected for the
following reasons:
(a) For a Principal Agent relationship to arise, it is a condition
precedent that the booking agents represent themselves as the
speaker’s agent to the appellant. To the contrary, in the contract
between the appellant and Harry Walker agency, it is explicitly
mentioned that the booking agent is an independent contractor
and will not be responsible for the actions of the speaker. There
was no representation whatsoever that the booking agent was
representing the speaker in concluding the contract with the
appellant.
(b) To the contrary, the booking agent would ensure that the
speaker appears in the Summit organized by the appellant and
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 8 of 29
is concluding the contracts in their individual capacity for the
purpose of ensuring the speakers’ presence in the Summit.
(c) Merely because the agencies abroad represented themselves
as 'booking agents', they would not automatically become
agents of the speakers. For such an agency to arise, the contract
must be in such a way that the booking agents conclude the
contracts by way of an express authorization granted by the
speakers to the booking agents. Such an authorization is
conspicuous by its absence in the present case.
(d) If the booking agents are indeed agents of the speakers as
submitted by the appellant, there was no requirement for the
booking agents to distance themselves from the speakers
action, since their role will be limited to merely concluding the
contract and will have no liability at all, since it is actually the
speaker himself concluding the contract in the eyes of the law.
(e) Lastly, the consideration that was paid by the appellant to
the booking agent was not a payment made to the speaker
directly. It was a payment made to the booking agent for
procuring the speaker. Consequently, the gross amount
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 9 of 29
charged by the booking agent would be the taxable value, on
which the rate of Service Tax would apply.
(f) As a result, on account of the lack of representation by the
booking agents to the appellant that they were indeed
representing the speakers while concluding the contract and
the lack of express authorization issued by the speakers to the
booking agents to conclude contracts on their behalf, the
booking agents cannot be treated as mere agents of the
speakers.
18. The Revenue further contended that the submission of the
appellant that the contours of Section 65(105)(zu) are not satisfied
deserves to be rejected for the following reasons:
(a) Any service provided or to be provided to any person by an
event manager in relation to event management is a taxable
supply under Section 65(105)(zu).
(b) An ‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in
providing any service in relation to event management in any
manner, under Section 65(41).
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 10 of 29
(c) ‘Event Management' means 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, under
Section 65(40).
(d) In short, the appellant must satisfy the definition of the event
manager and must provide a service in relation to the event
management, for the charge to be successful.
(e) The speakers cannot be identified separately from the
Summit. It is the speakers that constitute the Summit. There
would be no Summit if not for the speakers’ presence. In other
words, the speakers by themselves become the event. The role
of the booking agents must be examined in this context.
(f) By ensuring the speakers’ presence for a consideration, the
booking agents undoubtedly rendered a service in relation to
the planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of the
Summit. It was integral for the appellant to procure the
speakers since without them the event would be without any
significance, and it was the booking agents that ensured
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 11 of 29
speakers’ presence. Consequently, the booking agents would
become event managers and by procuring the speakers’
presence and ensuring that they deliver the lecture at the
Summit, they have provided an event management service,
liable to tax under Section 65(105)(zu).
19. In the last, it was argued that the decision of this Court in
International Merchandising Company LLC (supra) has no
application to the present case.
20. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
prayed that there being no merit in the appeals those may be
dismissed
ANALYSIS:-
21. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the material on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is 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” under
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 12 of 29
Sections 65(40) and 65(41) read with Section 65(105)(zu) respectively
of Chapter V of the Finance Act?
22. The aforesaid issue falls for our consideration for the period of
demand between October, 2009 and March, 2012. The revenue
implication is to the tune of Rs. 60,56,180/- (Rupees sixty lakh fifty-
six thousand one hundred eighty).
23. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either
side, we must look into few relevant provisions of the Finance Act.
24. During the period of dispute and up to 30.06.2012, Service Tax
was levied on various categories of taxable services defined in the
Finance Act i.e., under the positive definition of taxable services
[w.e.f. 01.07.2012 the negative list of services regime was introduced
under the Finance Act, where all services were taxable except services
in the negative list or those exempted by notification issued by the
Central Government], the relevant provisions of which are:
(a) Section 66 – provided for levy of Service Tax on value of
taxable services.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 13 of 29
(b) Section 66A – provided for levy of Service Tax on taxable
services provided from outside India and received by a person
in India under the reverse charge mechanism.
(c) Various sub-Sections of Section 65 – provided definition of
individual taxable services, which were amended from time to
time by an amending Act, and liability to Service Tax.
(d) Section 65A – provided for the classification of taxable
services, as follows:
“65A. Classification of taxable services –
(1) For the purposes of this chapter, classification of
taxable services shall be determined according to the
terms of the sub- clauses (105) of section 65;
(2) When for any reason, a taxable service is prima facie,
classifiable under two or more sub-clauses of clause
(105) of section 65, classification shall be effected as
follows :-
(a) the sub-clause which provides the most specific
description shall be preferred to sub-clauses providing a
more general description;
(b) composite services consisting of a combination of
different services which cannot be classified in the
manner specified in clause (a), shall be classified as if
they consisted of a service which gives them their
essential character, in so far as this criterion is
applicable;
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 14 of 29
(c) when a service cannot be classified in the manner
specified in clause (a) or clause (b), it shall be classified
under the sub-clause which occurs first among the sub-
clauses which equally merits consideration;]
4(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply with
effect from such date as the Central Government may, by
notification, appoint.”
(e) Section 73 – provided for recovery of Service Tax not
levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously
refunded.
25. Section 65(41) of the Finance Act defined ‘event manager’ as
follows:
“‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in
providing any service in relation to event management in
any manner”
26. Section 65(40) of the Finance Act defined ‘event management’
as follows:
“‘event management’ means 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”
27. Section 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act, defined taxable service
as follows:
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 15 of 29
“65. … (105) “taxable service” means any service provided
or to be provided, -
xxx xxx xxx
(zu) to any person, by an event manager in relation to event
management”
28. The Tax Research Unit of the Board Circular issued under
vide
F. No. B11/1/2002-TRU dated August 8, 2002 (hereinafter, the
“ Circular dated 08.08.2002 ”) clarified inter alia in relation to Event
Management Service as thus:
“2. As per clause (34), “event management” means any
service provided in relation to planning, promotion,
organizing or presentation of any arts, entertainment,
business, sports or any other event and includes any
consultation provided in this regard. Vide clause (90)(zu),
taxable service means any service provided to a client, by
an event manager in relation to event management. Event
manager has been defined in clause (35) as any person who
is engaged in providing any service in relation to event
management in any manner.
3. An event manager is hired to execute an event such as
product launch of any corporate, promotional activities,
concerts/ rock show, official meets, award functions,
beauty pageants, entertainment events, exhibitions, private
functions, and sports events etc. Event manager uses his
expertise and ideas to manage an event. Event manager is
supposed to manage a venue, sets including decoration of
sets, mandap, chair, table, barricades, sound, light video,
electricals, security, communication, invitations to the
event/ sale of tickets and publicity of the event. He has also
to manage the stage show, artist, musician, choreographers
and other miscellaneous items for holding of event. All
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 16 of 29
services provided by the event manager are liable to service
tax. This also covers any consultation provided for
organizing an event....”
29. Section 65(68) of the Finance Act defined ‘Manpower
Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’ as follows:
“ Manpower recruitment or supply agency ” means any
person engaged in providing any service, directly or
indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of
manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person”.
30. Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act defined ‘taxable service’ as
follows:
“65. … (105) "taxable service" means any service provided
or to be provided,-
(k) to any person, by a manpower recruitment or supply
agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower,
temporarily or otherwise, in any manner;
Explanation — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause,
recruitment or supply of manpower includes services in
relation to pre-recruitment screening, verification of the
credentials and antecedents of the candidate and
authenticity of documents submitted by the candidate;”
31.
Thus, the essential ingredients for levy of Service Tax during the
Period of Dispute on any activity were:
(a) Such activity should be service provided in India;
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 17 of 29
(b) Provided by one person to another;
(c) For a consideration;
(d) Such service must fall under any of the defined taxable
category of service i.e., under the positive definition of taxable
services under the Finance Act and made liable to Service Tax
as taxable service under various clauses of Section 65(105).
Thus, for levy of Service Tax, taxable category of services of the
Finance Act under which such service is liable to Service Tax
has to be determined and proposed in the show cause notice
issued by the Department; and
(e) In case of taxable service provided from outside India to a
person in India, the recipient of such service is liable to Service
Tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
SCHEME OF TAXABILITY
32. For the purpose of deciding the pivotal issue, it is first necessary
to discuss the scheme of taxability under the Finance Act during the
relevant period. The period of dispute is from October 2009 to March
2012.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 18 of 29
33. It is not in dispute that during such period prior to 1.7.2012,
the Service Tax was leviable only on the positive list of services as
enumerated in Section 65(105) of Chapter V of the Finance Act. If the
services strictly fall within such list, then they are taxable and if not,
then no tax can be imposed on such services.
34. The only clause of the taxable list of services which is being
invoked by the revenue in the present case for imposing tax is Section
65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act.
35. The expressions “event management” and “event manager”
respectively occurring in Section 65(105)(zu) are defined under
Section 65(40) and Section 65(41) of the Finance Act respectively.
36. The impugned levy of Service Tax can be sustained only if the
service in question falls within the four corners of “event
management” by an “event manager”.
WHETHER THE PROVISION COVERS THE SERVICE IN
QUESTION?
37. The agreements of the assessee with the agents are part of the
record of the present appeals. A bare perusal of these agreements
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 19 of 29
would indicate that they are in the nature of booking a particular
speaker for the Summit. It provides for conditions relating to travel
and accommodation of the speaker as well as the schedule of the
speaker during his/her visit for the Summit. The contract also
provides for the commitments made by the speakers. For instance,
in the contract of the assessee with the Washington Speakers Bureau
for Mr. Tony Blair, the contract refers to the likely duration of Mr.
Blair’s speech and Question & Answer session. It also provides for
the locations where and the duration for which media interaction
with Mr. Blair can take place. The contract further briefly touches
upon the topics of interaction.
38. Moreover, the appellant assessee has also placed on record
declarations from the agents that they rendered services to the
assessee as booking agents and that the payment for appearance of
speakers was collected by the agents under instructions and on
behalf of the speakers in terms of the contracts with the speakers.
39. The tenor of the contracts 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
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 20 of 29
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.
40. The entire submission of the revenue focuses on the aspect as to
whether a “principal-agent” relationship is established between the
speaker and the booking agent. However, we are of the view that this
is wholly irrelevant for the present controversy. The issue is not
whether the relationship between the speaker and the booking agent
is that of “principal-agent” or not. The issue is whether the contract
constitutes “event management service”. As discussed hereinbefore,
the contract is for booking of speaker and not for event management
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 21 of 29
and therefore, the levy of tax on such contract under the category of
“Event Management Service” should fail.
41. The further argument of the revenue that, without the speaker
the event would be devoid of any significance and therefore, the
service in question is an “Event Management Service”, also deserves
to be rejected. That the presence of the speaker is essential for the
event cannot be disputed. However, whether the service of the
speaker or the agent on behalf of the speaker can be considered to
be “event management service” is altogether a different issue. 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”.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 22 of 29
PRINCIPLE OF STRICT INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTE
WELL ESTABLISHED
42. The principle of strict interpretation of a taxing statute,
particularly in the context of charging provisions, is well established.
We may refer to the recent decision in the case of Shiv Steels v.
State of Assam reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2006 wherein this
Court observed as under:
“14. In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the
liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict
letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case
falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can
be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within
the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax
can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to
probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering
what was the substance of the matter.”
(Emphasis supplied)
CIRCULAR OF CBIC ALSO SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEE
43. The reliance placed by the assessee on Circular dated 8.8.2002
is also well founded. At the cost of repetition, we reproduce the
relevant extract of the circular as under:
“3. An event manager is hired to execute an event such as
product launch of any corporate, promotional activities,
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 23 of 29
concerts/rock show, official meets, award functions, beauty
pageants, entertainment events, exhibitions, private
functions and sports events, etc. Event manager uses his
expertise and ideas to manage an event. Event manager is
supposed to manage a venue, sets including decoration of
sets, mandap, chair, table, barricades, sound, light, video,
electricals, security, communication, invitation to the
event/sale of tickets and publicity of the event. He has also
to manage the stage show, artist, musician, choreographers
and other miscellaneous items for holding of event. All
services provided by the event manager are liable to service
tax. This also covers any consultation provided for
organizing and event…”
44. Thus, what is sought to be covered is the service of management
or organizing of the event, and the revenue cannot be allowed to
stretch the application of such a clause beyond its contours.
45. Having said so, we are also of the view that the classification
dispute raised by the appellant, pursuant to the decision of this
Court in International Merchandising Company LLC (supra) ,
deserves to be rejected for the following reasons:
(a) The appellant is correct insofar as the following is concerned:
(i) Prior to 01.07.2012, the Service Tax regime had specific
entries for each service. In other words, without a particular
classification, the Revenue cannot tax any service.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 24 of 29
(ii) Consequently, a particular service cannot have two
classifications and has to be traced under a specific sub-
clause of Section 65(105).
(iii) Since the disputed period is prior to 01.07.2012, the
service provided by the booking agents to the appellant
needs to be classified under a specific sub-clause. As a
result, if the appellant succeeds on the ground that the
service provided by the booking agents is a manpower
supply service, as held in the aforesaid judgment of this
Court, the Revenue cannot classify the same service as
event management simultaneously.
(b) Though at first glance, the facts in International
Merchandising Company LLC (supra) seem to overlap with
the present case, a subtle yet significant difference
distinguishes the present case from the facts of International
Merchandising.
(c) In International Merchandising Company LLC (supra),
the appearance and presence of Mr. Vijay Amritraj was ensured
by the service provided in relation to the Chennai Open, which
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 25 of 29
was the event. He was to make appearances and participate in
the charity opening match. What is crucial to note is that Mr.
Amritraj had no relevance whatsoever to the main event i.e.,
Chennai Open. With or without Mr. Amritraj, the main event
i.e., Chennai Open, would have continued without any hiccups.
This would show that the presence of Mr. Amritraj was merely
ancillary to the main event.
(d) To the contrary, in the present case, the booking agents that
ensured the speakers’ presence directly played an integral role
in the event itself. Without their involvement, the Summit
conducted by the appellant would not have taken place since
the event and the speakers cannot be separated from each
other. The speakers and their lecture constitute the event, and
the booking agents ensure the event takes place. As a result,
the speakers’ presence is not ancillary to the main event.
(e) Consequently, the judgment in International
Merchandising Company LLC (supra) is distinguishable from
the facts of the present case.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 26 of 29
LEVY FAILS EVEN ON APPLICATION OF COMMON PARLANCE
TEST
46. What is stated in the circular is also the common parlance
understanding of “event management”. The common parlance test
has been applied by this Court for determining classification under
sales tax statutes on various occasions. While deciding whether
“charcoal” would be included in “coal” it was observed by this Court
in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh
Charan Singh reported in 1967 SCC Online SC 154 as under:
“The result emerging from these decisions is that while
construing the word “coal” in entry 1 of Part III of Schedule
II, the test that would be applied is what would be the
meaning which persons dealing with coal and consumers
purchasing it as fuel would give to that word. A sales tax
statute, being one levying a tax on goods, must, in the
absence of a technical term or a term of science or art, be
presumed to have used an ordinary term as coal according
to the meaning ascribed to it in common parlance. Viewed
from that angle both a merchant dealing in coal and a
consumer wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its
geological sense but in the sense as ordinarily understood
and would include “charcoal” in the term “coal”.”
(Emphasis supplied)
47. Similarly, while deciding whether clinical syringes could be
considered as “glassware” or not, this Court observed in the case of
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 27 of 29
Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax
reported in (1981) 2 SCC 528 as under:
“It is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression
“glassware” is “articles made of glass” (see Webster’s New
World Dictionary). However, in commercial sense glassware
would never comprise articles like clinical syringes,
thermometers, lactometers and the like which have
specialized significance and utility. In popular or commercial
parlance a general merchant dealing in “glassware” does not
ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes,
thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles though made
of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the
manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely
that a consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware
shop. In popular sense when one talks of glassware such
specialized articles like clinical syringes, thermometers,
lactometers and the like do not come up to one’s mind.
Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the
view that the clinical syringes which the assessee
manufactures and sells cannot be considered as “glassware”
falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
48. 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. The expressions ‘event management’ and ‘event
managers’ is commonly understood in the sense of appointing
someone to manage or organize the event. Individual contract for
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 28 of 29
booking of persons required for participation in the event are not
commonly understood as “event management” contracts.
49. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is hereby
set aside.
......................................... J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
......................................... J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
New Delhi,
th
16 January, 2026.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 29 of 29
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 23525 - 23526 OF 2017
HT MEDIA LIMITED ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DELHI
SOUTH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are the
same, the challenge is also to the self-same judgment passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.01.16
15:15:23 IST
Reason:
Tribunal and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 1 of 29
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common
judgment and order.
2. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi (for short, the “ CESTAT ”) dated 31.08.2017 in Service Tax
Appeal Nos. 52881 & 52888 of 2014 respectively, by which the
appeals filed by the appellant herein came to be disposed by the
Tribunal holding that the appellants herein are liable to pay Service
Tax under the category of “event management service” for the period
covered within the normal limitation. At the same time, the Tribunal
also held that the demand of Service Tax in respect of management
consultancy service and business support service, and interest
liability for entries with reference to associated enterprise were not
sustainable in law.
FACTUAL MATRIX:-
3. The appellant assessee conducted annual Hindustan Times
Leadership Summit (hereinafter referred to as, “ the Summit ”).
Speakers were invited from outside India to address the Summit. The
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 2 of 29
appellant entered into contracts with booking agents such as the
Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry Walker Agency to book
speakers such as Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Jerry Linenger and Mr. Al Gore.
4. Show cause notices were issued under the Finance Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as “ 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” under
Section 65(105)(zu) read with Sections 65(40) and 65(41) respectively
of Chapter V of the Finance Act by invoking the extended period of
limitation.
5. The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner
and ultimately vide the Order-in-Original dated 13.02.2014, the
demand of Service Tax invoking the extended period of limitation
under Section 73 of the Finance Act with interest and penalty, was
confirmed.
6. The appellant assessee being dissatisfied with the Order-in-
Original passed by the Commissioner referred to above, went in
appeal before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal set aside the
invocation of the extended period of limitation, the demand under the
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 3 of 29
normal period of limitation came to be affirmed by the Tribunal under
the category of “Event Management Service”.
7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here
before this Court with the present appeals.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-
8. Mr. Ashok Dhingra, the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a
serious error in passing the impugned order affirming the demand
under the normal period of limitation. It was argued vehemently that
no service could be said to have been provided by the agents to the
appellant.
9. The learned Counsel argued that there was no arrangement
between the appellant and the agents for providing of any service for
the Summit to the appellant. The agents, being lecture booking
agents of the speakers, dealt with the appellant on behalf of the
speakers.
10. It was further argued that the speakers, being senior politicians
and former heads of States could be booked only through their
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 4 of 29
respective agents, who negotiate & execute contracts, and collect an
appearance fee on behalf of the speakers. The agents were paid by
the speakers for the services rendered to the speakers, which fact has
been confirmed by both the Washington Speakers Bureau and Harry
Walker Agency respectively.
11. It was argued that for Section 65(40) and Section 65(105)(zu) of
the Finance Act respectively to apply, an activity must have the
following essential ingredients cumulatively to be taxable as service
under taxable category of Event Management thereof:
(a) The person providing the Service must be an Event Manager,
as defined in Section 65(41) read with the TRU Circular dated
08.08.2002.
(b) Such Event Manager should be engaged in providing service
to any person, and
(c) Such service should be in relation to event management, i.e.,
planning, promotion, organizing, or presentation of any arts,
entertainment, business, sports, marriage or any other event
and includes any consultation provided in this regard.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 5 of 29
12. The learned Counsel submitted that the TRU Circular dated
08.08.2002 clarified that Event Manager is a person who is engaged
in managing the venue for an event, including decoration of sets,
mandap, chair, table, barricades, sound, light video, electricals,
security, communication, invitations to the event/sale of tickets and
publicity of the event; & also has to manage stage show, artist,
musician, choreographers & other miscellaneous items of work for
holding of an event.
13. It was also argued that in the instant case the agents:
(a) were neither event managers, nor were engaged in providing
any service to the appellant. The agreements were signed by
them as lecture booking agents of the speakers, on their behalf;
(b) were not engaged in managing venue, decoration of sets,
barricades, sound, light, security, communication, sale of
tickets or publicity;
(c) had nothing to do with planning, promotion, organization, or
presentation of the Summit, and
(d) did not provide any consultation to the appellant qua the
Summit.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 6 of 29
14. In the last, it was argued that in the decision rendered in
International Merchandising Company, LLC (Earlier known as
International Merchandising Corporation) v. Commissioner,
Service Tax, New Delhi 2023 (3) SCC 641
reported in , this Court
has held, in an identical fact situation, that the service falls under
the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service,
classifiable under Section 65(105)(k). Consequently, the very same
service cannot be classified by the Revenue under Section 65(105)(zu)
as Event Management Services.
15. The learned Counsel in support of his aforesaid submissions
placed strong reliance on the following decisions:
(a) Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax reported in ( 2024) 8 SCC 608 .
(b) UOI v. Future Gaming Solutions Private Limited
reported in (2025) 5 SCC 601 .
16. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Counsel
prayed that there being merit in his appeals, those may be allowed
and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 7 of 29
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE:
17. On the other hand, Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, the
learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that the
primary contention of the appellant that the booking agents are the
agents of the speakers and there is no service contract between the
booking agents and the appellant, deserves to be rejected for the
following reasons:
(a) For a Principal Agent relationship to arise, it is a condition
precedent that the booking agents represent themselves as the
speaker’s agent to the appellant. To the contrary, in the contract
between the appellant and Harry Walker agency, it is explicitly
mentioned that the booking agent is an independent contractor
and will not be responsible for the actions of the speaker. There
was no representation whatsoever that the booking agent was
representing the speaker in concluding the contract with the
appellant.
(b) To the contrary, the booking agent would ensure that the
speaker appears in the Summit organized by the appellant and
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 8 of 29
is concluding the contracts in their individual capacity for the
purpose of ensuring the speakers’ presence in the Summit.
(c) Merely because the agencies abroad represented themselves
as 'booking agents', they would not automatically become
agents of the speakers. For such an agency to arise, the contract
must be in such a way that the booking agents conclude the
contracts by way of an express authorization granted by the
speakers to the booking agents. Such an authorization is
conspicuous by its absence in the present case.
(d) If the booking agents are indeed agents of the speakers as
submitted by the appellant, there was no requirement for the
booking agents to distance themselves from the speakers
action, since their role will be limited to merely concluding the
contract and will have no liability at all, since it is actually the
speaker himself concluding the contract in the eyes of the law.
(e) Lastly, the consideration that was paid by the appellant to
the booking agent was not a payment made to the speaker
directly. It was a payment made to the booking agent for
procuring the speaker. Consequently, the gross amount
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 9 of 29
charged by the booking agent would be the taxable value, on
which the rate of Service Tax would apply.
(f) As a result, on account of the lack of representation by the
booking agents to the appellant that they were indeed
representing the speakers while concluding the contract and
the lack of express authorization issued by the speakers to the
booking agents to conclude contracts on their behalf, the
booking agents cannot be treated as mere agents of the
speakers.
18. The Revenue further contended that the submission of the
appellant that the contours of Section 65(105)(zu) are not satisfied
deserves to be rejected for the following reasons:
(a) Any service provided or to be provided to any person by an
event manager in relation to event management is a taxable
supply under Section 65(105)(zu).
(b) An ‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in
providing any service in relation to event management in any
manner, under Section 65(41).
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 10 of 29
(c) ‘Event Management' means 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, under
Section 65(40).
(d) In short, the appellant must satisfy the definition of the event
manager and must provide a service in relation to the event
management, for the charge to be successful.
(e) The speakers cannot be identified separately from the
Summit. It is the speakers that constitute the Summit. There
would be no Summit if not for the speakers’ presence. In other
words, the speakers by themselves become the event. The role
of the booking agents must be examined in this context.
(f) By ensuring the speakers’ presence for a consideration, the
booking agents undoubtedly rendered a service in relation to
the planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of the
Summit. It was integral for the appellant to procure the
speakers since without them the event would be without any
significance, and it was the booking agents that ensured
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 11 of 29
speakers’ presence. Consequently, the booking agents would
become event managers and by procuring the speakers’
presence and ensuring that they deliver the lecture at the
Summit, they have provided an event management service,
liable to tax under Section 65(105)(zu).
19. In the last, it was argued that the decision of this Court in
International Merchandising Company LLC (supra) has no
application to the present case.
20. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
prayed that there being no merit in the appeals those may be
dismissed
ANALYSIS:-
21. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the material on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is 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” under
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 12 of 29
Sections 65(40) and 65(41) read with Section 65(105)(zu) respectively
of Chapter V of the Finance Act?
22. The aforesaid issue falls for our consideration for the period of
demand between October, 2009 and March, 2012. The revenue
implication is to the tune of Rs. 60,56,180/- (Rupees sixty lakh fifty-
six thousand one hundred eighty).
23. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either
side, we must look into few relevant provisions of the Finance Act.
24. During the period of dispute and up to 30.06.2012, Service Tax
was levied on various categories of taxable services defined in the
Finance Act i.e., under the positive definition of taxable services
[w.e.f. 01.07.2012 the negative list of services regime was introduced
under the Finance Act, where all services were taxable except services
in the negative list or those exempted by notification issued by the
Central Government], the relevant provisions of which are:
(a) Section 66 – provided for levy of Service Tax on value of
taxable services.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 13 of 29
(b) Section 66A – provided for levy of Service Tax on taxable
services provided from outside India and received by a person
in India under the reverse charge mechanism.
(c) Various sub-Sections of Section 65 – provided definition of
individual taxable services, which were amended from time to
time by an amending Act, and liability to Service Tax.
(d) Section 65A – provided for the classification of taxable
services, as follows:
“65A. Classification of taxable services –
(1) For the purposes of this chapter, classification of
taxable services shall be determined according to the
terms of the sub- clauses (105) of section 65;
(2) When for any reason, a taxable service is prima facie,
classifiable under two or more sub-clauses of clause
(105) of section 65, classification shall be effected as
follows :-
(a) the sub-clause which provides the most specific
description shall be preferred to sub-clauses providing a
more general description;
(b) composite services consisting of a combination of
different services which cannot be classified in the
manner specified in clause (a), shall be classified as if
they consisted of a service which gives them their
essential character, in so far as this criterion is
applicable;
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 14 of 29
(c) when a service cannot be classified in the manner
specified in clause (a) or clause (b), it shall be classified
under the sub-clause which occurs first among the sub-
clauses which equally merits consideration;]
4(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply with
effect from such date as the Central Government may, by
notification, appoint.”
(e) Section 73 – provided for recovery of Service Tax not
levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously
refunded.
25. Section 65(41) of the Finance Act defined ‘event manager’ as
follows:
“‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in
providing any service in relation to event management in
any manner”
26. Section 65(40) of the Finance Act defined ‘event management’
as follows:
“‘event management’ means 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”
27. Section 65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act, defined taxable service
as follows:
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 15 of 29
“65. … (105) “taxable service” means any service provided
or to be provided, -
xxx xxx xxx
(zu) to any person, by an event manager in relation to event
management”
28. The Tax Research Unit of the Board Circular issued under
vide
F. No. B11/1/2002-TRU dated August 8, 2002 (hereinafter, the
“ Circular dated 08.08.2002 ”) clarified inter alia in relation to Event
Management Service as thus:
“2. As per clause (34), “event management” means any
service provided in relation to planning, promotion,
organizing or presentation of any arts, entertainment,
business, sports or any other event and includes any
consultation provided in this regard. Vide clause (90)(zu),
taxable service means any service provided to a client, by
an event manager in relation to event management. Event
manager has been defined in clause (35) as any person who
is engaged in providing any service in relation to event
management in any manner.
3. An event manager is hired to execute an event such as
product launch of any corporate, promotional activities,
concerts/ rock show, official meets, award functions,
beauty pageants, entertainment events, exhibitions, private
functions, and sports events etc. Event manager uses his
expertise and ideas to manage an event. Event manager is
supposed to manage a venue, sets including decoration of
sets, mandap, chair, table, barricades, sound, light video,
electricals, security, communication, invitations to the
event/ sale of tickets and publicity of the event. He has also
to manage the stage show, artist, musician, choreographers
and other miscellaneous items for holding of event. All
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 16 of 29
services provided by the event manager are liable to service
tax. This also covers any consultation provided for
organizing an event....”
29. Section 65(68) of the Finance Act defined ‘Manpower
Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’ as follows:
“ Manpower recruitment or supply agency ” means any
person engaged in providing any service, directly or
indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of
manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person”.
30. Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act defined ‘taxable service’ as
follows:
“65. … (105) "taxable service" means any service provided
or to be provided,-
(k) to any person, by a manpower recruitment or supply
agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower,
temporarily or otherwise, in any manner;
Explanation — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause,
recruitment or supply of manpower includes services in
relation to pre-recruitment screening, verification of the
credentials and antecedents of the candidate and
authenticity of documents submitted by the candidate;”
31.
Thus, the essential ingredients for levy of Service Tax during the
Period of Dispute on any activity were:
(a) Such activity should be service provided in India;
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 17 of 29
(b) Provided by one person to another;
(c) For a consideration;
(d) Such service must fall under any of the defined taxable
category of service i.e., under the positive definition of taxable
services under the Finance Act and made liable to Service Tax
as taxable service under various clauses of Section 65(105).
Thus, for levy of Service Tax, taxable category of services of the
Finance Act under which such service is liable to Service Tax
has to be determined and proposed in the show cause notice
issued by the Department; and
(e) In case of taxable service provided from outside India to a
person in India, the recipient of such service is liable to Service
Tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
SCHEME OF TAXABILITY
32. For the purpose of deciding the pivotal issue, it is first necessary
to discuss the scheme of taxability under the Finance Act during the
relevant period. The period of dispute is from October 2009 to March
2012.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 18 of 29
33. It is not in dispute that during such period prior to 1.7.2012,
the Service Tax was leviable only on the positive list of services as
enumerated in Section 65(105) of Chapter V of the Finance Act. If the
services strictly fall within such list, then they are taxable and if not,
then no tax can be imposed on such services.
34. The only clause of the taxable list of services which is being
invoked by the revenue in the present case for imposing tax is Section
65(105)(zu) of the Finance Act.
35. The expressions “event management” and “event manager”
respectively occurring in Section 65(105)(zu) are defined under
Section 65(40) and Section 65(41) of the Finance Act respectively.
36. The impugned levy of Service Tax can be sustained only if the
service in question falls within the four corners of “event
management” by an “event manager”.
WHETHER THE PROVISION COVERS THE SERVICE IN
QUESTION?
37. The agreements of the assessee with the agents are part of the
record of the present appeals. A bare perusal of these agreements
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 19 of 29
would indicate that they are in the nature of booking a particular
speaker for the Summit. It provides for conditions relating to travel
and accommodation of the speaker as well as the schedule of the
speaker during his/her visit for the Summit. The contract also
provides for the commitments made by the speakers. For instance,
in the contract of the assessee with the Washington Speakers Bureau
for Mr. Tony Blair, the contract refers to the likely duration of Mr.
Blair’s speech and Question & Answer session. It also provides for
the locations where and the duration for which media interaction
with Mr. Blair can take place. The contract further briefly touches
upon the topics of interaction.
38. Moreover, the appellant assessee has also placed on record
declarations from the agents that they rendered services to the
assessee as booking agents and that the payment for appearance of
speakers was collected by the agents under instructions and on
behalf of the speakers in terms of the contracts with the speakers.
39. The tenor of the contracts 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
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 20 of 29
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.
40. The entire submission of the revenue focuses on the aspect as to
whether a “principal-agent” relationship is established between the
speaker and the booking agent. However, we are of the view that this
is wholly irrelevant for the present controversy. The issue is not
whether the relationship between the speaker and the booking agent
is that of “principal-agent” or not. The issue is whether the contract
constitutes “event management service”. As discussed hereinbefore,
the contract is for booking of speaker and not for event management
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 21 of 29
and therefore, the levy of tax on such contract under the category of
“Event Management Service” should fail.
41. The further argument of the revenue that, without the speaker
the event would be devoid of any significance and therefore, the
service in question is an “Event Management Service”, also deserves
to be rejected. That the presence of the speaker is essential for the
event cannot be disputed. However, whether the service of the
speaker or the agent on behalf of the speaker can be considered to
be “event management service” is altogether a different issue. 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”.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 22 of 29
PRINCIPLE OF STRICT INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTE
WELL ESTABLISHED
42. The principle of strict interpretation of a taxing statute,
particularly in the context of charging provisions, is well established.
We may refer to the recent decision in the case of Shiv Steels v.
State of Assam reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2006 wherein this
Court observed as under:
“14. In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the
liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict
letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case
falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can
be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within
the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax
can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to
probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering
what was the substance of the matter.”
(Emphasis supplied)
CIRCULAR OF CBIC ALSO SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEE
43. The reliance placed by the assessee on Circular dated 8.8.2002
is also well founded. At the cost of repetition, we reproduce the
relevant extract of the circular as under:
“3. An event manager is hired to execute an event such as
product launch of any corporate, promotional activities,
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 23 of 29
concerts/rock show, official meets, award functions, beauty
pageants, entertainment events, exhibitions, private
functions and sports events, etc. Event manager uses his
expertise and ideas to manage an event. Event manager is
supposed to manage a venue, sets including decoration of
sets, mandap, chair, table, barricades, sound, light, video,
electricals, security, communication, invitation to the
event/sale of tickets and publicity of the event. He has also
to manage the stage show, artist, musician, choreographers
and other miscellaneous items for holding of event. All
services provided by the event manager are liable to service
tax. This also covers any consultation provided for
organizing and event…”
44. Thus, what is sought to be covered is the service of management
or organizing of the event, and the revenue cannot be allowed to
stretch the application of such a clause beyond its contours.
45. Having said so, we are also of the view that the classification
dispute raised by the appellant, pursuant to the decision of this
Court in International Merchandising Company LLC (supra) ,
deserves to be rejected for the following reasons:
(a) The appellant is correct insofar as the following is concerned:
(i) Prior to 01.07.2012, the Service Tax regime had specific
entries for each service. In other words, without a particular
classification, the Revenue cannot tax any service.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 24 of 29
(ii) Consequently, a particular service cannot have two
classifications and has to be traced under a specific sub-
clause of Section 65(105).
(iii) Since the disputed period is prior to 01.07.2012, the
service provided by the booking agents to the appellant
needs to be classified under a specific sub-clause. As a
result, if the appellant succeeds on the ground that the
service provided by the booking agents is a manpower
supply service, as held in the aforesaid judgment of this
Court, the Revenue cannot classify the same service as
event management simultaneously.
(b) Though at first glance, the facts in International
Merchandising Company LLC (supra) seem to overlap with
the present case, a subtle yet significant difference
distinguishes the present case from the facts of International
Merchandising.
(c) In International Merchandising Company LLC (supra),
the appearance and presence of Mr. Vijay Amritraj was ensured
by the service provided in relation to the Chennai Open, which
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 25 of 29
was the event. He was to make appearances and participate in
the charity opening match. What is crucial to note is that Mr.
Amritraj had no relevance whatsoever to the main event i.e.,
Chennai Open. With or without Mr. Amritraj, the main event
i.e., Chennai Open, would have continued without any hiccups.
This would show that the presence of Mr. Amritraj was merely
ancillary to the main event.
(d) To the contrary, in the present case, the booking agents that
ensured the speakers’ presence directly played an integral role
in the event itself. Without their involvement, the Summit
conducted by the appellant would not have taken place since
the event and the speakers cannot be separated from each
other. The speakers and their lecture constitute the event, and
the booking agents ensure the event takes place. As a result,
the speakers’ presence is not ancillary to the main event.
(e) Consequently, the judgment in International
Merchandising Company LLC (supra) is distinguishable from
the facts of the present case.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 26 of 29
LEVY FAILS EVEN ON APPLICATION OF COMMON PARLANCE
TEST
46. What is stated in the circular is also the common parlance
understanding of “event management”. The common parlance test
has been applied by this Court for determining classification under
sales tax statutes on various occasions. While deciding whether
“charcoal” would be included in “coal” it was observed by this Court
in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh
Charan Singh reported in 1967 SCC Online SC 154 as under:
“The result emerging from these decisions is that while
construing the word “coal” in entry 1 of Part III of Schedule
II, the test that would be applied is what would be the
meaning which persons dealing with coal and consumers
purchasing it as fuel would give to that word. A sales tax
statute, being one levying a tax on goods, must, in the
absence of a technical term or a term of science or art, be
presumed to have used an ordinary term as coal according
to the meaning ascribed to it in common parlance. Viewed
from that angle both a merchant dealing in coal and a
consumer wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its
geological sense but in the sense as ordinarily understood
and would include “charcoal” in the term “coal”.”
(Emphasis supplied)
47. Similarly, while deciding whether clinical syringes could be
considered as “glassware” or not, this Court observed in the case of
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 27 of 29
Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax
reported in (1981) 2 SCC 528 as under:
“It is true that the dictionary meaning of the expression
“glassware” is “articles made of glass” (see Webster’s New
World Dictionary). However, in commercial sense glassware
would never comprise articles like clinical syringes,
thermometers, lactometers and the like which have
specialized significance and utility. In popular or commercial
parlance a general merchant dealing in “glassware” does not
ordinarily deal in articles like clinical syringes,
thermometers, lactometers, etc., which articles though made
of glass, are normally available in medical stores or with the
manufacturers thereof like the assessee. It is equally unlikely
that a consumer would ask for such articles from a glassware
shop. In popular sense when one talks of glassware such
specialized articles like clinical syringes, thermometers,
lactometers and the like do not come up to one’s mind.
Applying the aforesaid test, therefore, we are clearly of the
view that the clinical syringes which the assessee
manufactures and sells cannot be considered as “glassware”
falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
48. 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. The expressions ‘event management’ and ‘event
managers’ is commonly understood in the sense of appointing
someone to manage or organize the event. Individual contract for
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 28 of 29
booking of persons required for participation in the event are not
commonly understood as “event management” contracts.
49. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is hereby
set aside.
......................................... J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
......................................... J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
New Delhi,
th
16 January, 2026.
Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 29 of 29