GTA service abatement cannot be denied for missing consignment-note declaration when the notification does not require it.

Abatement of 75% from taxable GTA service value could not be denied merely because the consignment note did not record the declaration that no input or capital goods credit had been taken and that Notification No. 12/2003 benefit was not availed. The benefit under Notification No. 32/04-S.T. was refused on the basis of a Board circular, but the Gujarat High Court had already held that a circular cannot add a condition not found in the notification. Accordingly, the absence of the declaration in the consignment note did not defeat the substantive abatement benefit, and the denial was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the abatement of 75% from the value of taxable GTA service could be denied merely because the declaration that no input or capital goods credit had been taken and that the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 had not been availed was not made in the consignment note.

Analysis: The benefit under Notification No. 32/04-S.T. was refused on the basis of a Board circular requiring the service provider to incorporate the declaration in the consignment note. The issue had already been settled by the Gujarat High Court, which held that where the notification itself does not prescribe such a condition, a circular cannot introduce additional requirements to deny a substantive exemption or abatement benefit. The absence of the declaration, therefore, could not defeat the statutory benefit when the notification did not make it mandatory.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was unsustainable and the benefit was allowable despite the absence of the declaration in the consignment note.

---