Skip to content
- 22nd July 1999 – Operators Signed the Migration Package of DoT
- 1st Aug 1999 – Cut off date for Change Over to NTP-99
- 6th Oct 1999 – Date of appointment of the Consultant by DoT
- 15th Nov 1999 – TRAI GMPCS Recommendation
- Gross Revenue is revenue by way of operation of GMPCS service
- No double counting of telecom turnover for LF calculation
- Handsets, USO fund, taxes should be netted out for LF calculation
- 23rd June 2000 – TRAI CMS Recommendation
- Gross Revenue is revenue by way of operation of CMS service
- IUC, roaming, service tax, sale of handsets netted out of LF calculation
- 31st Aug 2000 – TRAI BSO Recommendation
- Same as above
- 31st Oct 2000 – TRAI’s Response to DoT’s Back Reference
- DOT’s Comments – Proposes to include revenue from non-license activities
- TRAI’s Response – Reiterates to include rev from only licensed activities
- 21st May 2001 – DoT finalised the concept of Gross Revenue
- 1st April 2002 – DoT spelt out changes in license conditions
- 19th May 2003 – AUSPI filed Petition 7 of 2003 in TDSAT
- 7th July 2006 – TDSAT’s Judgment
- Revenue from non-licensed activities not part of Gross Revenue
- Remanded the matter to TRAI for an effective consultation
- 13th Sept 2006 – TRAI Recommendation
- Recommended portions of revenue to be included and excluded
- Oct 2006 – DoT filed a petition in Supreme Court
- 19th Jan 2007 – Supreme Court Order (On DoT’s Petition)
- No Reason to Interfere on account of TDSAT proceedings
- DoT given liberty to urge all the contention before TDSAT
- 13th Feb 2007 – DoT filed objections to TRAI’s recommendation before TDSAT
- 30th Aug 2007 – TDSAT’s Judgment
- TDSAT agreed to most of TRAI’s recommendations
- 30th Oct 2007 – DoT filed an appeal to SC (5059 of 2007)
- 4th Dec 2007 – AUSPI appealed against TDSAT order in SC (CA 179-180 of 2007)
- Against TDSAT judgment that date of relief will be from the date of the petition
- 11th Nov 2011 – SC Judgment (AUSPI case)
- TDSAT has no jurisdiction to decide non-telecom rev on part of GR
- TDSAT has jurisdiction to decide any dispute between licensee and licensor
- Feb 2012 – Operators challenged all demands of DoT in TDSAT
- 23rd April 2015 – TDSAT’s Judgment
- Revenue is no different from what is defined in AS-9
- All revenues including non-telecom will be included in GR
- All revenues that are included in clause 19.1 of the license agreement
- All revenues that are excluded that are in clause 19.2 of license
- Capital receipts are different from the revenue
- Revenue cannot be subjected to double charge
- No one can charge revenue from oneself
- One can not treat someone else’s revenue as his own
- 23rd July 2015 – DoT filed an appeal in SC against TDSAT order
- 24th Oct 2019 – SC Judgment
- Overturned TDSAT judgment totally
- Established DoT’s right to collect revenue from non-license activities
- Revenue is as per contract and AS-9 is only for accounting purpose
- Established DoT’s right to impose interests and penalties
Like this:
Like Loading...