M/S. Indus Towers Limited vs. Union Of India

Written by Saptaparni Raha, Lawyer

Introduction:

The petitioner is the passive infrastructure service provider for mobile telecommunication operators. The petitioner has facilities from the operators. The petitioner is seeking to reduce the cost of telephone service providers to use the same shelter and tower by two or more telecommunication operators. Petitioner enters into the master service agreement with its clients.

Facts:

• Rooftop and ground base are two types of towers offered by the petitioners with the same infrastructure facilities.

• Petitioner, for a specific period of time, entered into an agreement with various mobile telecommunication operators.

• A power function is governed by the microcontroller to ensure the smooth functioning of the running mobile network.

Judgment:

The honorable Supreme Court has observed that the drafters of the forty-sixth amendment have chosen only three situations like a work contract, a hire purchase contract, and a catering contract to bring them within the ambit of a deemed sale in the BSNL v. Union of India case.

It is evident that the definition of sale attracted the transactions which are taxable under the Tamil Nadu value added tax Act and the Finance Act. Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India also includes the meaning of temporary shelter.

Conclusion:

All impugned orders are quashed, and the writ petition is allowed with no cost. All contended miscellaneous petitions are closed.

References:

M/S.Indus Towers Limited vs Union Of India (Indiankanoon)

Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram for more updates.