AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 271 wordsAdmit. No notice need be issued because learned counsel for Union of India, Mr. Dhruv Tamta has appeared on advance notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a licence holder and is rendering Pure Internet Services and the revenue for the same has wrongly been included by the respondent in calculating AGR and demanding licence fee from the petitioner. He relies upon judgement of this Tribunal dated 18.10.2019 in Internet Service Providers Association of India and Ors. Versus Union of India in T P No. 169 of 2014. He submits that Union of India has preferred an appeal against that judgement but only a limited interim order has been passed protecting the Union of India from liability to refund the licence fee already deposited but there is no stay over the judgement of this Tribunal. On that basis, it has been submitted that the impugned demands are bad in law. It has further been submitted that in similar matters such as T. P. No. 2 of 2021 an interim protection has been granted by this Tribunal and those matters are likely to be listed again on 28.10.2021.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions, interim protection is extended to the petitioner also. The respondent shall not take any coercive steps for realisation of the licence fee based upon AGR if it includes revenue from Pure Internet Service also.
Post the matter under the head "For Directions" on 28.10.2021.
It will be open for the respondent to file a reply within four weeks. If possible, petitioner may also file rejoinder by the next date.