Tata Tele requests SC to stay BSNL demand for Rs 372 cr
Tata Teleservices today requested the Supreme Court to stay the orders of telecom tribunal TDSAT, which allowed the state-owned firm BSNL to recover Rs 372 crore in dues from the company on account of a levy, called Access Deficit Charge.delhi Updated: Aug 20, 2010 20:48 IST
Tata Teleservices (TTSL) on Friday requested the Supreme Court to stay the orders of telecom tribunal TDSAT, which allowed the state-owned firm BSNL to recover Rs 372 crore in dues from the company on account of a levy, called Access Deficit Charge (ADC).
TTSL requested the apex court to stay the order of the Telcom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) directing BSNL to recover the ADC dues for providing Walky services.
The TTSL application was mentioned before a bench, headed by the Chief Justice S H Kapadia, which posted the hearing for August 26, along with the main plea that challenges the BSNL's demand.
On July 23, the Supreme Court had refused to stay BSNL's ADC demand notice of over Rs 800 crore to RCom and TTSL for offering the services between August 2005, and February, 2006.
The BSNL demand, including penalty, comprised Rs 431 crore from RCom and Rs 372 crore TTSL.
The Supreme Court had asked the companies to produce the records of the calls that originated from BSNL's network and terminated on their network.
The bench had also directed them to file an affidavit within two weeks, detailing the actual rate of ADC due and the penalty imposed by BSNL.
In 2005, the Supreme Court had said that Walky services were part of Wireless in Local Loop (WLL) services. Under the telecom rules, WLL attracts the ADC levy by BSNL, and the state-owned firm raised the demand.
BSNL's move was challenged by RCom and TTSL before TDSAT, which in April 2010, upheld the demand.
In its petition, telcos contended that TDSAT, while allowing BSNL to raise the demands, had completely "ignored this clear finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has upheld the demand which is not only a demand for ADC but also a penalty which is in complete violation of the Interconnect Agreement between the parties"
They further submitted that TDSAT itself had earlier said in a judgement "that the ADC and IUC Regulations as per the Interconnect Agreement are two different things and ADC cannot be charged as a part of violation of IUC Regulation".