https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184647 A statutory electricity tariff concession granted under an amendmentable schedule remained a defeasible benefit, not an indefeasible right. Because the State acted within the same statutory framework that created the concession, promissory estoppel could not be used to compel its continuance after the tariff schedule was amended. The Court also rejected the challenge based on the units' profit position and the State's policy choice, treating the grant and withdrawal of tariff concessions as matters within the State's lawful domain absent legal infirmity. The amended tariff and demand for normal rates were therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:20:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184647 A statutory electricity tariff concession granted under an amendmentable schedule remained a defeasible benefit, not an indefeasible right. Because the State acted within the same statutory framework that created the concession, promissory estoppel could not be used to compel its continuance after the tariff schedule was amended. The Court also rejected the challenge based on the units' profit position and the State's policy choice, treating the grant and withdrawal of tariff concessions as matters within the State's lawful domain absent legal infirmity. The amended tariff and demand for normal rates were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184647