1. Petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and a subsidiary of M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, engaged in the business of providing telecom services to its subscribers in India, has Drought in question the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, (hereinafter referred to as ITAT, for brevity) dated 6.3.2014 (vide Annexure-G) or. two interlocutory applications filed by it in No.63- 67/Bang/2013 and has sought a writ of prohibition or such other writ to direct the respondents not to enforce the assessment order passed by the respondent herein vide Annexure-A dated 28.1.2013 and the consequent demand notice in pursuance to Annexure-A vide Annexure-B on the same day.

2. On issuance of notice regarding Rulr;, Mr.K.V.Arvind has entered appearance for the Revenue.

3. I have heard persuasive arguments of Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned advocate for the petitioner and also Mr.K.V.Aravind, standing counsel for the Revenue-Income Tax Department and perused records in supplementation thereto from which the following factual matrix manifests and is relevant for consideration:

a) Petitioner claims to be a company of repute engaged in the business of providing telecom services to its subscribers in India and has entered into agreements with Non-resident Telecom Operators (NTOs, for short), for providing bandwidth and interconnect capacity outside India and those foreign companies are knit with the petitioner under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA, for short).

b) The genesis of this writ petition is the opinion of the tax assessing officer that the petitioner has made payments to foreign companies for providing bandwidth and interconnect capacity outside India. Such payments made by the petitioner to foreign companies for providing bandwidth and interconnect capacity is liable to tax in India in the hands of foreign companies, attracting Section 9(l)(vi) and (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), bringing such payments within the mischief of the definition of 'Royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services/ consequently treating the petitioner as an 'assessee in default', invoking Section 201(1) and to impose penalty and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act, attracting Section 195 of the Act, ultimately resulting in passing of the assessment order vide Annexure-A date 28.1 = 2013 and consequent demand notice vide Annexure-B of the same date.

3. From the facts not in dispute, it is evident petitioner company is engaged in the provision of International Long Distance (ILD) services to its subscribers in pursuance to the licence granted by the Department of Telecommunications under the Telegraph Ac:, It is not in dispute as part of its ILD telecommunication services, petitioner provides connectivity services in respect of calls originating/terminating in India. To complete the provision of ILD services, petitioner has obtained services of Nonresident Telecom Operators (NTOs) for providing services like carriage/connectivity services over the last leg of communication channel.

4. Needless to record for such services petitioner company depends on the services of NTOs. NTOs render such services in completion of services of telecommunication to the subscribers of the petitioner company for "consideration The transaction between the petitioner and such NTOs being civil in nature, agreements are signed by the NTOs with the petitioner company for provision of ILD and connectivity services. These agreements, as contended by the petitioner, are executed outside India. That means, the agreements signify and cover services rendered by the NTOs in the country beyond the territory of India. Calls originating or terminating from India occasioned by the use of telecommunication services provided by the petitioner company to these subscribers are therefore directly dependant on the services rendered by the NTOs, but for whic