Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for sales tax exemption on the building required reconsideration in view of the petitioner's co-ownership of the property, the subsequent registration of the lease deed, and the applicability of the amended exemption condition.
Analysis: The exemption framework required, in the case of buildings put up on leased land, that the land be obtained on a registered lease and that the building be constructed for the industry after such registration. The judgment distinguished a case of co-ownership from a pure lease case and noted that the petitioner's application preceded the amendment introduced by the subsequent Government Order. It also referred to the statutory requirement that a lease deed for a period of one year or more must be registered and to the evidentiary consequences of non-registration. On the facts, the petitioner's absolute right over the property was not established, as the record did not show release deeds from the other co-owners.
Conclusion: The petitioner was directed to produce proof of absolute right over the property by obtaining the necessary release deeds or otherwise, and the first respondent was directed to reconsider the claim for exemption afresh in the light of the observations made and the earlier dictum.