https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216643 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. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216643 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216643