Naresh Kumar & Co. v. Commissioner of Service Tax
The court separated actual C&F services from distinct tasks that could not simply be absorbed into that heading.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-09-26
The court separated actual C&F services from distinct tasks that could not simply be absorbed into that heading. Demand recalculation directed; distinct bending, bundling and stock-verification levies under C&F set aside, with lawful alternative classification reserved and detailed payment/interest directions.
What happened
A coal-handling contractor contested whether bending, bundling, stock verification and related receipts fell into the old clearing-and-forwarding taxable service.
Questions before the court
- Which components of the contract were within that taxable category?
Why the court ruled this way
The court separated actual C&F services from distinct tasks that could not simply be absorbed into that heading.
Controlling point
The court separated actual C&F services from distinct tasks that could not simply be absorbed into that heading.
Order and next steps
Demand recalculation directed; distinct bending, bundling and stock-verification levies under C&F set aside, with lawful alternative classification reserved and detailed payment/interest directions.
Practical implications
The operative result is case-specific: Demand recalculation directed; distinct bending, bundling and stock-verification levies under C&F set aside, with lawful alternative classification reserved and detailed payment/interest directions. Apply it within the court’s stated limit: Do not treat the whole contract as exempt; the judgment apportions distinct services and sets bespoke payment mechanics.
Limits of this ruling
- Do not treat the whole contract as exempt; the judgment apportions distinct services and sets bespoke payment mechanics.
Law and judgment source
- Finance Act, 1994, clearing and forwarding agent service
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established. A three-byte UTF-8 transport prefix preceding the PDF signature was removed to make the unchanged PDF content open in standard readers. A three-byte UTF-8 transport prefix before the PDF signature was removed; internal PDF bytes were unchanged.
Source checked: 2026-09-26 · Judgment paragraphs: conclusion, paragraphs 85–94 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.