No exemption from payment of stamp duty can be granted beyond the period prescribed.

The petitioner, a Tourist bus service has sought for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 30.6.1995 and to direct the respondents to grant exemption of stamp duty in respect of the sale deed dated 25.4.94 bearing pending document No.375/94 Sub-Registrar's office, Adyar, executed by the 4th respondent Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (TANSI) in favour of the petitioner and register the same.

2.According to the petitioner, they have purchased an extent of 2283 sq.mts. together with an A C sheet roofed building measuring 1012.31 sq.mts and an A C sheet roofed shed measuring 221.18 sq.mts land in Thiru Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy from TANSI under the sale deed dated 25.4.94. The petitioner submits that TANSI is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and a Company registered under the Companies Act. The total sale consideration for the purchase was Rs.56,65,194/-. The petitioner sought for exemption of stamp duty for the said sale on the basis of the Government Order issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.169, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 7.6.93. In terms of the said Government Order, a purchaser would be entitled to exemption of stamp duty for three years with effect from 25.1.1993. The purport of the Government Order was to grant to the small entrepreneurs a relief from paying heavy stamp duty so that the same can be utilised for the development of the industries.

3.The petitioner further contends that the property was purchased by the petitioner from TANSI which had been formed with the assistance of the Government and registered under the Companies Act. However, the third respondent has refused to grant exemption and kept the registration of the deed in abeyance and allotted pending No.375/94. By a notice dated 27.5.94, the third respondent sought to impound the document and the petitioner was directed to pay the alleged deficit stamp duty of Rs.7,62,466/- apart from levying penalty of Rs.250/-. The petitioner, thereupon, preferred a revision before the second respondent to set aside the said order. However, the third respondent also had confirmed the order and dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the above writ petition.

4.In the counter filed by the fourth respondent-TANSI, it is contended that the company was at present undertaking an exercise to restructure the staff pattern to make it a profitable venture and some of the units are under closure. As far as the transaction with the petitioner is concerned, an agreement for sale was entered into between both parties and the matter was referred to the appropriate authority of the Income-tax Department for obtaining no objection certificate and the appropriate authority had issued the required certificate. The sale deed was executed on 25.4.94 with the Sub-Registrar, Adyar after receiving the full value. The respondent has nothing to do with the exemption of stamp duty and it is for the Government to decide.

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the refusal on part of the authority to grant exemption was against the very purport of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 7.6.93. The object of having issued such a notification was to encourage the industrial entrepreneurs. Though it is true that TANSI has not been specifically named in the Government Order, TANSI will certainly fall under the expression, "Industrial Estates formed with the assistance of the Government and registered under the Companies Act, 1956". The learned Counsel further states that when the other Industrial Development Corporations such as SIDCO, SIPCOT, TACIID have been included, there is no reason who TANSI could not be included.

6.Learned Counsel also relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in THE BROACH DISTT.CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES GINNING AND PRESSING SOCIETY LTD., V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in A.I.R 1989 SC 1493 and in