M/s Ethernet Xpress India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and looking to the contentious issues raised in this Telecom Petition, the same is admitted.

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

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued out the matter at length for interim relief. It is vehemently submitted by counsel for the petitioner that six notices have been issued by the respondent which are at annexure P-1 to the memo of this petition and they are dated 4.5.2023, 8.5.2023 and 22.6.2023.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the total demand raised by the respondent is approximately for Rs.62,73,324/-. Counsel for the petitioner has further narrated the earlier round of litigation and has submitted that the whole matter is based upon the computation of AGR and they have succeeded in the earlier round of litigation before this Hon’ble Tribunal and the respondent has carried the matter up to the Highest Court in which stay is being operative even today.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid notices which are at annexure P-1, there are two types of demands and one type of demands are already stayed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and, therefore, earlier, this petitioner had claimed refund for approximately Rs.4 Crores.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the refund as claimed by this petitioner has not been given by the respondent and the matter is yet to be finalized by the respondent. Meanwhile, respondent has raised the aforesaid demand by virtue of as many as six notices which are at annexure P-1 (colly) to the memo of this petition whereby respondent has raised approximately total demand at Rs.62,73,324/- and, therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that let interim relief order be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Counsel for the respondent has opposed the grant of interim relief in favour of petitioner and it is submitted that the demand raised by the respondent is on the basis of Pure Internet Revenue.

Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, especially that the refund claim has already been made by the respondent of approximately Rs.4 Crores which is pending since long with the respondent and looking to the nature of the demand raised by the respondent of approximately Rs.62,73,324/- and also looking to the nature of the dispute between the parties to this litigation and also looking to the previous decision rendered by this Tribunal and also looking to the stay order granted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation, we hereby direct the respondent not to initiate coercive steps against this petitioner in pursuance of notices which are dated 4.5.2023, 8.5.2023 and 22.6.2023 at annexure P-1 (colly) to the memo of this petition, till the next date of hearing.

We also hereby direct the respondent not to encash the Bank Guarantee which is given by this petitioner to the respondent for Rs.35,67,000/- which is at annexure P-8 to the memo of this petition, if not encashed so far.

List the matter under the head “For Directions” on 25.4.2024.