https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158400 Under the Kerala Abkari Act and the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974, the State's mandatory supply obligation was confined to the monthly quota, while any supply beyond that quota remained discretionary and dependent on availability. Failure to supply additional arrack did not create a right to remission, abatement, damages, or reduction of the contractual liability because the rules barred remission or abatement and the licensees had no enforceable entitlement to extra quantities. Doctrines of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, fairness, and frustration could not be used to vary the express terms of a statutory excise contract or impose a supply obligation beyond the quota. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158400 Under the Kerala Abkari Act and the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974, the State's mandatory supply obligation was confined to the monthly quota, while any supply beyond that quota remained discretionary and dependent on availability. Failure to supply additional arrack did not create a right to remission, abatement, damages, or reduction of the contractual liability because the rules barred remission or abatement and the licensees had no enforceable entitlement to extra quantities. Doctrines of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, fairness, and frustration could not be used to vary the express terms of a statutory excise contract or impose a supply obligation beyond the quota. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158400