"On 23rd January 2020, POWERGRID has filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for clarification/modification of its order on 24th October 2019 and next course of action will be based on the outcome of the application," PowerGrid said in a statement.
The company pointed out, "Non-Telecom revenue of Power Grid i.e. power transmission and its related consultancy business constitutes 98 per cent of revenue whereas revenue from telecom segment is only about 2 per cent."
It also claimed that PowerGrid is National Long distance (NLD) and Internet Service Provider (ISP) licensee and is regularly paying the applicable license fee on Adjusted Gross Revenue
(AGR) to DoT in line with terms & conditions of respective license agreements and have also been assessed by DoT up to 2013-14.
The company said that DoT has done provisional assessments for 2014-15 to 2017-18 and also reassessed for 2012-13 and 2013-14 and raised additional demand to the tune of Rs 21,954 crore in the past one year by addition of non-telecom revenue as miscellaneous income in AGR.
PowerGrid has contested the demands before DoT and requested for its withdrawal, as the definition of AGR under NLD and ISP license agreements does not include such non-telecom revenue, it said.
Moreover, it said that the DoT recently completed the assessment of NLD and ISP licenses for 2018-19 without addition of miscellaneous income and in fact assessed a refund to PowerGrid.
The dispute, regarding interpretation of AGR pending before the Supreme Court, was between DoT and Telecom Service Operators (TSPs), who were holding Unified Access Service License (UASL) and migrated from National Telecom Policy (NTP)-1994 to NTP-1999, it said.
The recent judgment on October 24, 2019, of the Supreme Court, is not applicable/binding on PowerGrid as it was not licensee prior to 2001 and never held UASL, it added.
Further, it also said that the definition of AGR as per NLD and ISP license agreements as well as nature of limited telecom activity of PowerGrid is completely different and distinct from that relating to the TSPs, which were before the Supreme Court.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.