- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ] The Supreme Court has agreed to hear modification pleas moved by state-owned public sector units (PSUs) in the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) verdict.The verdict made non-telecom firms holding licences for internal communications and signalling liable to pay license fees on their entire revenue, even if they do not offer telecom services.A Supreme Court bench headed by...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear modification pleas moved by state-owned public sector units (PSUs) in the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) verdict.
The verdict made non-telecom firms holding licences for internal communications and signalling liable to pay license fees on their entire revenue, even if they do not offer telecom services.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde is likely hear the matter along with other modification pleas filed by telecom companies seeking more time to pay off the dues and easier payment terms.
The October 24, 2019 Supreme Court order enabled the DoT to demand Rs 1.72 trillion from non-telecom PSUs like the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL), Rs 48,000 crore from Oil India Ltd, Rs 22,168 crore from Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, Rs 15,019 crore from Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd as well as Rs 5,841 crore along with interest from the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC).
Consequently, Oil India filed a modification plea before the Supreme Court recently against the Supreme Court verdict.
DMRC had also moved the court seeking a clarification stating that DoT’s “unjust demand" would lead to “evaporation of financial structure of DMRC and would lead to operations coming to a standstill to the great detriment of the commuting public of NCR region".