Intermedia Cable Communication Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India

Looking to the contentious issues raised in this petition the same is Admitted.

Notice upon respondent.  Counsel Mr. Chandrashekhar Chakalabbi accepts the notice for the respondent and is seeking time to get instructions and to file reply.   Time to file reply is granted to the respondent till the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that similar interim relief be granted to the petitioner which has been granted in the several other matters including in T.P. No.13 of 2022 order dated 10.3.2022 (Annexure P-3 collectively).

Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that prima facie the respondent has clubbed telecom revenue with the non-telecom revenue.  It also prima facie appears that mainly the revenue of the petitioner is from cable services and left out/remaining 8% to 10% revenue for which the petitioner has already raised the grounds at “t” and “u” in the memo of this petition, which read as under:

t. “Because even as per the DOT the core licensed activity i.e. the pure internet activity remained exempted for the levy of license fee for the relevant years, and it would be absurd if income from other businesses are subject to license fee when the core licensed activity i.e. the internet activity is itself exempted under the license.

u. “Because without prejudice, in “World Phone Internet Services v UOI”, the increase in license fee from 6% to 7%/8% was set aside in absence of any amendment on the terms and conditions of the license by the Hon’ble TDSAT.”

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also pointed out that in Asianet Satellite Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India in T.P. No.54 of 2020, this Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 28.7.2021 has passed an order for not to take any coercive steps against this petitioner.

As the cumulative effects of the aforesaid facts and reasons and aforesaid order passed in Asianet Satellite Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, there is a prima facie case in favour of this petitioner.  Balance of convenience is also in favour of this petitioner and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.

The respondent is hereby directed, not to initiate any coercive steps for realisation of the impugned demands for which the notices have been issued (which are mentioned in the prayer clause) till the next date of hearing.

The respondent shall file reply by the next date of hearing and the copy whereof shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.  Rejoinder shall be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.

This matter is, therefore, adjourned to 24.4.2024.