HT Media Limited vs Principal Commissioner Delhi South Goods and Service Tax

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)

JUDGMENT

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

Tribunal and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for Reason:

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 reported in 2023 (3) SCC 641, 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 vide Circular issued under

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, 16th January, 2026.

Civil Appeal Nos. 23525-23526 of 2017 Page 29 of 29