- 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 ]A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S A Abdul Nazeer and Justice M R Shah, rejected separate review petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Teleservices to review the court’s October 24, 2019 verdict widening the definition of adjusted gross revenue (AGR).This has left the three telecom companies collectively facing a whopping...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S A Abdul Nazeer and Justice M R Shah, rejected separate review petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Teleservices to review the court’s October 24, 2019 verdict widening the definition of adjusted gross revenue (AGR).
This has left the three telecom companies collectively facing a whopping Rs 1.02 lakh-crore to be paid has additional license fees, spectrum usage charge (SUC), penalties as well as interest.
License fee and SUC are calculated on the basis of AGR.
The three telecom companies had filed separate petitions in the court, seeking a review of penalties and interest on the dues, and had questioned some components of non-core items that the court had said should be included while computing AGR of telecom companies.
It may be recalled that in November 2019, these companies had sought a limited review of the ruling in the hope of softening the AGR blow, and did not challenged the entire SC order or seek an extension of the payment deadline.
Vodafone Idea and Airtel are worst hit by the Supreme Court’s order, facing statutory dues of Rs 53,039 crore and Rs 35,586 crore respectively, which they need to pay up by January 23.
Tata Teleservices, which has sold its consumer mobility business to Airtel, has to pay dues of Rs 13,823 crore to the government.