JUDGMENT P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. – The grievance of the petitioner is against turning down the claim for sales tax exemption with respect to the "building", though the exemption sought for with regard to the "plant and machinery" stands accepted. The case of the petitioner is that he started commercial production on August 20, 1998 and the expansion was completed on August 31, 1999, whereupon necessary application was submitted for exemption on December 22, 1999 and January 15, 2001. It is stated that exemption was granted with respect to the "plant and machinery" on February 24, 2001, while denying the same in respect of the "building" having the value of more than Rs. 6,86,363. Pursuant to the denial of exhibit P1 application as per exhibit P2 order passed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority (first respondent) who passed exhibit P4 order confirming the stand taken by the fourth respondent and denying the benefit, which in turn is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the idea and understanding of the first and fourth respondents regarding the scope of exemption is wrong. Learned counsel also placed reliance on exhibit P5 judgment to contend that the reason given by the concerned respondents for turning down the claim for exemption is not correct or sustainable, particularly in view of the black and white difference between a "case of lease" and a case involving the property "owned by the co-owners". The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits, with reference to the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, that exhibit P5 judgment cannot be pressed into service for the case in hand; particularly since the same was passed on April 2, 2004 whereas the concerned G.O. cited and relied on while passed exhibit P2 order by the fourth respondent was dated May 19, 2004 and hence that the amendment brought about as per the said G.O. was not a subject-matter in exhibit P5 verdict. On going through exhibit P5 verdict passed by this court, it is revealed that, as per the stipulations then existed for granting sales tax exemption and investment subsidy, it was necessary to have either owned the land or taken on long term lease for ten years. On going through exhibit P5 verdict passed by this court, it is revealed that, as per the stipulations then existed for granting sales tax exemption and investment subsidy, it was necessary to have either owned the land or taken on long term lease for ten years. In the said case, the concerned petitioner owned the land in question as a "co-owner". Admittedly, there was no matter of dispute for the other joint owners of the property who were the children of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the petitioner therein was directed to appear and produce the release deeds or partition deeds in respect of the land before the State Level Committee for consideration of the question of exemption. In other words, the situation considered by this court in the said case was with regard to a case involving "co-ownership" of the property; which stood entirely on a different footing than a case involving lease to be procured for a long term period of 10 years. Now, coming to the amendment brought about by exhibit P6 G.O., the position as it stood earlier and the situation after the amendment has been given under paragraph/clause 3(9) of the appendix to the said G.O.; which is extracted below : Building actually required by the unit Building and civil works actually and situated in free hold land in the required for the running of the unit name of the unit or on land on and constructed in such land as registered hire-purchase or lease to described in para 7 hereinabove or in the unit for at least 10 years shall land taken by the owner/promoters of be eligible for tax exemption on the the unit on registered lease deed for basis of a valuation certificate from at least 10 years for the purpose shall Assistant Executive Engineer in be eligible for the tax exemption on PWD/KFC/SIDCO/Chartered Engr. subject the basis of a valuation certificate to a cost of ceiling of Rs. 200 per from Asst. Ex. Engineer in sq. ft. of plinth area. Compound PWD/KFC/SIDCO/Govt. Depts/local body walls, offices, showrooms, canteen, subject to a cost of ceiling of Rs. quarters and guest house or any other 2,000 per sq. metre of plinth area, civil structures not directly related compound wall, offices, canteen, show to production shall not eligible rooms, quarters and guest houses or any for tax exemption. ft. of plinth area. Compound PWD/KFC/SIDCO/Govt. Depts/local body walls, offices, showrooms, canteen, subject to a cost of ceiling of Rs. quarters and guest house or any other 2,000 per sq. metre of plinth area, civil structures not directly related compound wall, offices, canteen, show to production shall not eligible rooms, quarters and guest houses or any for tax exemption. other civil structure not directly related to production shall not be eligible for tax exemption. The building and civil structure shall have been the one constructed for the purpose of running the industry by the promoters after obtaining the land on registered lease. In such cases and in cases where lease deeds are registered after putting up the structures, such buildings and civil structures shall not be admitted for tax exemption. From the above, it is clear that the building and civil structure shall be the one constructed for the purpose of running the industry by the promoters after obtaining the land on registered lease. In other words, in cases where lease deeds are registered after putting up the structure, such buildings and civil structures shall not be admitted for tax exemption. This only means that the buildings involving "lease" were decided to be treated separately apart from the necessity to have had the lease for the period of 10 years. It was also clearly specified that the building should have been constructed for the purpose of the industry and that such construction should have been effected after registering the said lease deed. The position with regard to a case where the properly is owned solely or as co-owners and the building constructed in such property has not undergone any substantial change, even after the amendment. In this context, it is also relevant to note the legal consequences with regard to the question of "registration of lease deed" as well. By virtue of section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act a lease deed for a period of one year or more is liable to be registered as a matter of mandatory requirement. The effect of non-registration of documents which are compulsorily liable to be registered is dealt with under section 49 of the Registration Act and clause (c) of section 49 specifically says that such deeds cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. The effect of non-registration of documents which are compulsorily liable to be registered is dealt with under section 49 of the Registration Act and clause (c) of section 49 specifically says that such deeds cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. However, registration of any document can be done even subsequently and the date of registration will pertain back to the date of execution of the document. The benefit of exemption was intended to be given only to such persons who were having a genuine claim coming within the parameters prescribed and it is for this reason that it was stipulated that the building should have been constructed for the purpose of industry and that such construction should have been effect after registering the lease deed. In other words, the chance to have the provision for exemption misused was noted as more in the case of "lease"; which accordingly was taken care of, as per the amendment. In the instant case, it is submitted that the petitioner had already produced an unregistered lease deed earlier; despite the fact that the petitioner was a "co-owner". Subsequently the lease deed was registered and registered lease deed was also produced before the authorities, claiming exemption. Here also, the question to be considered is whether or not the status of the petitioners as "co-owner" of the property is adversely affected in any manner. As such, the right of such "co-owner" is liable to be considered separately in view of the dictum in exhibit P5 judgment. The right of the petitioner to have the matter reconsidered in the above terms is also for the reason that exhibit P6 G.O. bringing about the amendment was issued only on May 19, 2004; whereas exhibit P1 application for exemption was submitted way back on November 22, 1999; under which circumstances, it could have been considered only on the basis of the provision as it stood then, as dealt with by this court in exhibit P5 judgment as well. Considering the case in the above perspective, the only point is whether the petitioner is having absolute right over the property in question. Considering the case in the above perspective, the only point is whether the petitioner is having absolute right over the property in question. To have absolute right, it is very much necessary that the petitioner ought to have obtained requisite release deeds to be executed by other co-owners as well and it should have been produced before the authority for substantiating the claim for exemption; placing reliance on the dictum in exhibit P5 judgment. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of, directing the petitioner to produce proof as to his absolute right over the property by procuring necessary release deeds to be executed by other co-owners or otherwise and produce the same before the first respondent/State Level Committee for considering the claim for exemption within two months. On producing the same, the first respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and also in the light of the dictum in exhibit P5 judgment and final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.