AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.
No.","BSR
Code","Challan
Date","Challan
S. No.","Service
Tax
Code",Amount,"Edu.
Cess",SHE,"Total
Amount
1.,6390481,04.01.2013,00257,441089,"11,287",226,113,"11,626
2.,6390481,04.02.2013,01230,440060,"29,362",587,294,"30,243
3,6390481,04.03.2013,00815,440060,"66,957","1,339",670,"68,966
4,6390481,30.03.2013,03871,440060,"1,09,784","2,196","1,098","1,13,078
,,,,,,,Total,"2,23,913/-
rendered to a business entity.,,,,,,,,
Learned Departmental Representative relies on the impugned order.,,,,,,,,
Having considered the rival contentions, I find that Rule 2(bc) of Service Tax Rules, refers to the meaning of ‘body corporate’ in Section 2(7)",,,,,,,,
of the Companies Act, wherein any other body corporate which includes a LLP is specifically excluded from the definition of body corporate. Thus I",,,,,,,,
hold that the appellant as a 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 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. Thus the appeal is,,,,,,,,
allowed.,,,,,,,,
(Pronounced in Court on 28.07.2021),,,,,,,,