M/S MobME Wireless Solutions Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S. MOBME WIRELESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED 67/2355, V-0NE PLAZA,OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,COCHIN682018 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MANU JOSEPH SCARIA.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT. OF KERALA,TRIVANDRUM, KERALA.** - **2 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,FIRST CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM.** - **3 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, C.R. BUILDING,I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018.** - **4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. SMT.SREEKALA K.L. CGC R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AMP CUSTOMS R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH B., SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE &AMP; CUSTOMS R4 BY ADV. SMT.SREEKALA K.L., CGC** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SPL. GP SRI C E UNNIKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2672/2017(H), WP(C).2673/2017(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.2672 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S.MOBME WIRELESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED 67/2355, V-ONE PLAZA, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,COCHIN - 682 108,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.MANU JOSEPH SCARIA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,COMMERCIAL TAXES,**| ||**GOVT. OF KERALA,TRIVANDRUM, KERALA - 695 001.**| |**2**|**COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,FIRST CIRCLE,**| ||**ERNAKULAM - 682 018.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS -II**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM - 682 018.**| |**4**|**COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE**| ||**CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER**| ||**OF CENTRAL EXCISE,CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX,**| ||**C.R.BUILDIN,I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018.**| |**5**|**UNION OF INDIA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110**| ||**001.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF**| ||**EXCISE AMP CUSTOMS**| ||**R4 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF**| ||**EXCISE &AMP; CUSTOMS**| |**OTHER PRESENT**<br>**:**|| ||**SPL. GP SRI C E UNNIKRISHNAN**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2673/2017(H), WP(C).31016/2017(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.2673 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S.MOBME WIRELESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED 67/2355, V-ONE PLAZA, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,COCHIN-682018 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MANU JOSEPH SCARIA** **BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES,**| ||**GOVT OF KERALATRIVANDRUM, KERALA PIN-695001**| |**2**|**COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,FIRST CIRCLE,**| ||**ERNAKULAM PIN-682018**| |**3**|**COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX**| ||**OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,**| ||**CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, C.R.BUILDING I.S.PRESS**| ||**ROAD,KOCHI-682018**| |**4**|**UNION OF INDIA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF**| ||**FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,NORTH BLOCK, NEW**| ||**DELHI-110001**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF**| ||**EXCISE AMP CUSTOMS**| ||**R3 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF**| ||**EXCISE &AMP; CUSTOMS**| ## **OTHER PRESENT** ## **SPL. GP SRI C E UNNIKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2672/2017(H), WP(C).31016/2017(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 30[th] day of November 2020** The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 31016 of 2017, a private limited company registered under the KVAT Act is engaged in providing services to clientele across and outside the country, has laid challenge to assessment order Ext.P6, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16. At the commencement of the hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that in two writ petitions ie., W.P.(C) Nos.2672 and 2673 of 2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 & 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively are pending consideration. Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the aforementioned writ petitions may also be heard with W.P.(C) No. 31016 of 2017. Accordingly, the aforementioned writ petitions are ordered to be attached and decided together as common question of fact and law is involved. 2. In main writ petition the learned Special Government Pleader has raised the objections regarding the **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **5** maintainability of the writ petition in not availing the remedy of appeal or 2[nd] appeal as in other petition (W.P.(C) No.2672 of 2017), petitioner availed the remedy of appeal before the Deputy commissioner but without availing the remedy of 2[nd] appeal has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The counsel for the petitioner rebutted the aforementioned objection by saying that the orders under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 2672 of 2017 and 2673 of 2017 are perverse and without jurisdiction as the petitioner's transaction is not exigible to KVAT Act which is only to the tune of 5%, as the petitioners had already paying service tax for the services provided @ 15%. The authorities concerned have not adverted to any contents of the agreement as well as the invoices attached thereto which do not reflect any transfer of goods falling within the categories in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P [(2005) 1 SCC 308]** . For dealing with the aforementioned question, it would be apt for this court to give facts in brief; the petitioner is engaged in providing services of network solutions for **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **6** which there is no licencing or sale of software and the transaction is a pure service on which service tax is discharged. The activities carried out by the petitioner under the each category of services are extracted in detail herein below: ## **Networking Solution Services** Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) As a customer retention strategy Telecom Operators provide various offers to their customers. The offers are communicated to the respective customers through a message. The Appellants provide the service of communicating such offers to the end customers. For this purpose the Appellants are given a direct access to the Mobile Switching Centre of the telecom operators through telecom cards or internet connection. When a request is received at the Mobile Switching Centre of the telecom operators, it gets automatically redirected to the Appellants and response is generated by the Appellants. The services can be either customer initiated USSD or network initiated USSD. In the first instance customers dial toll free numbers from their mobile phones to know about the latest offers available to them. In the second case customers receive pre recorded messages informing them about new offers. ## **Zero User Latch On (Zulo)** Telecom operators use short message service centre (SMSC) to reach out to customers via messages pushing out attractive offers to users. Regular SMSC send SMS without knowing whether the number is active on the network or is switched off or is roaming. The SIM cards which are not active in the network or is switched off do not receive these messages. Zulo, an application developed by the Appellants which on the **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **7** other hand, checks the status of the number before sending a message to it and sends SMS only when the number is active on the network. The Appellants, using Zulo send messages to customers of telecom operators by accessing Mobile Switching Centre of the telecom operators. ## **Outbound Dialers** Customers receive pre reocorded automated voice calls communicating attractive offers and other services available to them. The voice messages to be transmitted to the end customers are provided by MobME on receipt of intimation from the operators. The customers can subscribe to the offers by following the directions given in the voice calls. ## **Interactive Voice Response (IVR)** IVR is same as outbound dialers with the exception that IVR is a customer initiative service wherein customers dial a toll free number and receive a recorded voice call communicating attractive offers and services. ## **Value Added Services** ## India Tweet It is a value added service wherein customers receive tweets from their favourite Celebrities even without internet access. The customers are required activate a specific plan to receive tweets. The details of the customers who have activated the plan are provided by the telecom operators to the Appellants. By accessing the Mobile Swtiching Centre of the telecom operators, the Appellants would send the tweets to the customers in the form of text messages. ## Cricket on Demand It is also a value added service wherein customers receive cricket update, live scores, fixtures etc by **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **8** activating specific plans. The process followed here the same as in the case of India Tweet except that instead of tweets, cricket updates, live scores, fixtures etc are provided. ## Picture Post Another value added service provided by the Appellants is Picture Post. This is again similar to India Tweet and Cricket on Demand except that instead of text messages pictures are sent. ## **Enterprise Services** ## Fast alert Fast alert services are mainly provided to enterprises like financial institutions, corporate etc. which assists them to communicate information to their end customers through an SMS. It can be either transactional or promotional services. A message received by an ATM card holder once he uses his card at the ATM counters to withdraw money from his bank account is an example of promotional alert. Similarly the banks may send messages to their customers informing attractive offers. The Appellants provide the platform for sending these SMS. 3. For carrying out the aforementioned activity the petitioner entered into an agreement with certain service providers Exts.P11 and P12 (W.P.(C) No.31016 of 2017). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the aforementioned assessment year, petitioner received the notice under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act 2003 under the head of best assessment on the premise **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **9** that the activity in which the petitioner is involved amounts to transfer and would thus be exigible to KVAT Act. In the writ petition pertaining to assessment years 2010-11 not only the assessing authority but the appellate authority did not advert to single invoice or clauses of the agreement which prima facie makes out a case that there was no such element of transfer of goods falling in the categories in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ibid. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the invoices whereby the services provided by the petitioner, as extracted above, relating to preferred services, in case the person avails the services of customer care or managing services. When the apps were not into place, certain persons wanted to avail the facility from a particular service provider, who entered into a contract with the petitioner to provide such services. Another service which the petitioner involved is the Enterprising solution where bulk messages were being sent to the customers which the service provider did not have the facility. The expression 'OBD' ie., the Outbound Dialer Caller is a prerecorded messages, which the customers are availing ## **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **10** on behalf of the service provider. There is no direct agreement of the petitioner with the customer. The petitioner is only a medium; providing a service to the service provider for the customers. Availment of an appeal before the Sale Tax Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 2015-16 would be a farcical exercise . Every aggrieved party is required to deposit court fees of 1% of the demand which would be running into lakhs of rupees in these cases and that to non refundable. The writ court can always examine veracity of the order on the touch stone of reasonability and jurisdiction much less legality. Instant case falls within the aforementioned categories and therefore extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. 4. On the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that this Court cannot assume the role of an appellate court as it is within the realm of Sales Tax Tribunal. Appellate authority in W.P.(C) No.2672 of 2017 examined the matter threadbare and dealt with each and every contention of the petitioner including the judgments cited at par and found that the transfer of copy rights as well as other **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **11** services contemplated transfer of them could not be ruled out. accordingly dismissed the appeal by upholding the demand. By concluding the aforementioned argument urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petitions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. There is no dispute to the proposition that the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the role of an appellate court but is not precluded from examining the veracity of the orders under challenge which are amenable to the appeal under the statute in case apparently suffer from a jurisdictional error or gross abuse. On minute examination of the order of the assessing authority, it is found that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply enclosing the copy of the agreement and invoices. In both of the orders of the assessing authorities and of the appellate authority pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11, there is hardly any advertence to the contents; and thorough examination by this Court in the instant writ petition ie., W.P.(C) No.31016 of 2017, it is found that the **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **12** invoices only pertain to providing of the services. By charging the service tax, the demand has been raised. Therefore none of the activities/services provided by the petitioner to the party would tantamount to prima facie any transfer of goods or any copy right. I would be refraining further to comment the same, as it would be within the scope and jurisdiction of the competent authority to decide. But in the absence of any advertence to the contents of the agreement and invoice, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the assessing officer to examine all these aspects while exercising the powers under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 ie., the best judgment by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted to the assessing authority to examine the demand by taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner and take a decision in accordance with law by affording an opportunity, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy the judgment. These writ petitions are disposed of. It is ## **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **13** made clear that till such time, the demands raised vide impugned assessment orders are ordered to be kept in abeyance. ## **Sd/-** sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **14** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31016/2017** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL VAT RETURN RELATING TO AY 2015-16.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER WPC 2672/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER WPC 2673/2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOL. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOL. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO VAS. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOL. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO ENTERPRISE SERVICES.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO ENTERPRISE SERVICES. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ST-3 RETURNS RELATING TO AY 2015-16. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDITED FINANCIALS OF THE PETITIONER RELATING TO AY 2015-16.** **R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 21.2.2011 BETWEEN M/S VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.** **R2(b) A SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AIRCEL LTD DATED 14.1.2010** **R2(c) AGREEMENT M/S.VODAFONE ESSAR LTD., DATED 13.10.2009** **R2(d) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND M/S BHARTI AIRTEL & BHARTI HEXACOM LTD ON 31.8.2011** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **15** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2672/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ANNURAL VAT RETURN**| |---|---| ||**RELATING TO AY2010-11 DATED 2011-12.**| |**P2**|**TRUE COPY OF ANNURAL VAT RETURN**| ||**RELATING TO AY2010-11 DATED 2011-12.**| |**P3**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.1.2014 FOR**| ||**AY 2010-11 AND NOTICE DATED 01.1.2014**| ||**FOR AY 2011-12.**| |**P4**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.1.2014 FOR**| ||**AY 2010-11 AND NOTICE DATED 01.1.2014**| ||**FOR AY 2011-12.**| |**P5**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLIES DATED 3.1.204**| ||**RELATING TO AY-2010-11 AND AY2011-12.**| |**P6**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLIES DATED 3.1.204**| ||**RELATING TO AY-2010-11 AND AY2011-12.**| |**P7**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDERS DATED 31.3.2014 AND**| ||**30.4.2014 RELATING TO AY 2010-11 AND AY**| ||**2011-12.**| |**P8**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDERS DATED 31.3.2014 AND**| ||**30.4.2014 RELATING TO AY 2010-11 AND AY**| ||**2011-12.**| |**P9**|**TRUE COPY OF APPEALS DATED 23.6.2014**| ||**RELATING TO AY 2010-11 AND AY 2011-12.**| |**P10**|**TRUE COPY OF APPEALS DATED 23.6.2014**| ||**RELATING TO AY 2010-11 AND AY 2011-12.**| |**P11**|**TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.9.2014.**| |**P12**|**TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2014.**| **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **16** |**P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED**| |---|---| ||**07.10.2016 RELATING TO AY 2010-11 AND**| ||**AY 2011-12.**| |**P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED**| ||**07.10.2016 RELATING TO AY 2010-11 AND**| ||**AY 2011-12.**| |**P15**|**COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOLIS.**| |**P16**|**TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOLIS.**| |**P17**|**TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEEMENT ENTERED INTO**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO VAS.**| |**P18**|**TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOLIS.**| |**P19**|**TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO**| ||**ENTERPRISE SERVICES.**| |**P20**|**TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER RELATING TO ENTERPRISE**| ||**SERVICES.**| |**P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ST-3 RETURN RELATING**| ||**TO 2010-11 AND 2011-12.**| |**R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 21.2.2011**|| |**BETWEEN M/S VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.**|| |**R2(b) A SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AIRCEL LTD DATED**|| |**14.1.2010**|| |**R2(c) AGREEMENT M/S.VODAFONE ESSAR LTD., DATED 13.10.2009**|| |**R2(d) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND M/S BHARTI**|| |**AIRTEL & BHARTI HEXACOM LTD ON 31.8.2011**|| ## **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **17** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **18** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2673/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL VAT RETURN RELATING TO AY 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL VAT RETURN RELATING TO AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL VAT RETURN RELATING TO AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 FOR AY 2012-13 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 FOR AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 FOR AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.12.2016 RELATING TO AY 2012-13 EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.12.2016 RELATING TO AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.12.2016 RELATING TO AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 RELATING TO AY 2012-13 EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.12.2016 RELATING TO AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.12.2016 RELATING TO AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPYOF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOLIS** **WP(C).No.31016 OF 2017(B) and conctd cases** **19** **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOLIS** **EXHIBIT P15;** - **TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO ENTERPRISE SERVICES** - **EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO NETSOLIS** - **EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO ENTERPRISE SERVICES** - **EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER RELATING TO ENTERPRISE SERVICES** - **EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE ST-3 RETURNS RELATING TO THE PERIOD FROM 2012-13 TO 2014-15** - **R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 21.2.2011 BETWEEN M/S VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.** **R2(b) A SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AIRCEL LTD DATED 14.1.2010** **R2(c) AGREEMENT M/S.VODAFONE ESSAR LTD., DATED 13.10.2009** **R2(d) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND M/S BHARTI AIRTEL & BHARTI HEXACOM LTD ON 31.8.2011**