As per case facts, K.C.P. Limited, a cement manufacturer, offered to supply cement at a concessional rate to the Nagarjunasagar Project. Following the implementation of Cement Control Orders, K.C.P. supplied ... cement as a selling agent for the State Trading Corporation (STC), initially providing a rebate. Later, K.C.P. stopped reflecting this rebate in its bills, though STC continued to factor it in. The State of Andhra Pradesh, as the purchaser, filed a suit to enforce the original fixed price and recover excess payments, while STC sued for the recovery of the rebate. The High Court dismissed Andhra Pradesh's suit but ruled in favor of STC. The K.C.P. Ltd. then appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether a binding contract for a fixed cement price existed, if K.C.P. had the right to discontinue the rebate, and if STC's claim for rebate recovery was valid. Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed there was no concluded contract for a fixed price. It held that K.C.P. had indeed offered and initially applied the rebate, and therefore, was not entitled to unilaterally withdraw it. The Court affirmed that STC was justified in recovering the rebate amount that K.C.P. had wrongfully debited in its accounts, upholding the High Court's reasoning.