https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776139 SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the regulator's and APTEL's rulings that a distribution licensee cannot unilaterally fix procurement tariff contrary to the statutory scheme. The Appropriate Commission alone determines tariff; a discounted levelized rate applied only to projects that availed accelerated depreciation. The purchaser's attempt to bind generators to that rate via PPAs - without obtaining written commitments that they would opt for accelerated depreciation - was impermissible. Generators who did not claim accelerated depreciation are not bound by the Rs.3.56/kWh tariff, and the purchaser's conduct was rejected. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776139 SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the regulator's and APTEL's rulings that a distribution licensee cannot unilaterally fix procurement tariff contrary to the statutory scheme. The Appropriate Commission alone determines tariff; a discounted levelized rate applied only to projects that availed accelerated depreciation. The purchaser's attempt to bind generators to that rate via PPAs - without obtaining written commitments that they would opt for accelerated depreciation - was impermissible. Generators who did not claim accelerated depreciation are not bound by the Rs.3.56/kWh tariff, and the purchaser's conduct was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776139