The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) stood that a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), implying not a “Body Corporate” under section 2(7) Companies Act 2013, is not likely to furnish the tax beneath the reverse charge mechanism (RCM).
The petitioner was performing the services which consist of the manpower supply up to 31st March 2013. For implementing the manpower supply services they obtained the manpower supply services from V. Search HR Consultancy Services, a partnership company up to 28 February 2013. The company was not satisfied through the order of the council and furnished the inter alia, which they had started as a limited liability partnership 
The council was of the opinion that the services optimized through the company are entitled to the service tax beneath the reverse charge mechanism.
It specifies that through the petitioner that they being an LLP does not come under the body corporate and thus is not subjected to furnish the services tax beneath the reverse charge which is applicable to the body corporate.
Judicial Member Anil Chaudhary observed that Rule 2(bc) of Service Tax Rules, leads to the definition of ‘body corporate’ in Section 2(7) of the Companies Act, in which any other body corporate consisting of an LLP is particularly not included from the definition of the body corporate.
“Thus I hold that the appellant as an LLP is not required to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism during the period under dispute. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It is held that the appellant is entitled to a refund of the service tax paid erroneously under reverse charge, as per the refund application.”
“Accordingly, the adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest for the period starting after three months from the date of refund application till the date of grant of refund, the authorities committed.”
