HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU RP No. 15/2024 in WP (C) No. 170/2021 M/S Pardeep Electricals & Builders Pvt. Ltd. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Arun Dev Singh, Advocate v/s Union of India & Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 02.04.2025 1. This is a petition by the petitioner seeking review of our judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in WP (C) No. 170/2021. There is a delay of 79 days in filing this petition, which for the reasons contained in the application being CM No. 894/2024, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, is condoned. The application is, therefore, disposed of. 2. The judgment dated 03.11.2023 is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the observation of this Court made in Paragraph 9 i.e. “There is virtually no dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of quantum of the amount payable to the respondents on account of reduction of rate of service tax from 18% to 12%” is to be taken and understood by the respondents as a mandate to calculate the amount to be recovered from the petitioner as per their own calculations. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in view of the aforesaid observation, the petitioner has been deprived of Sr. No. 06 2 RP No. 15/2024 in WP (C) No. 170/2021 its right to raise the issue of proper calculation of the amount payable in terms of the judgment. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of record pointed out or demonstrated in the review petition. The issue which is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be sorted out by issuing clarification in the following manner: “The observation of this Court as noticed above does not and shall not be construed to mean that we have restrained the respondents for disputing the calculations made by the respondents with respect to the amount payable by the petitioner under the judgment sought to be reviewed. This Court has only dismissed the petition holding that the respondents are entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner on account of reduction of rate of service tax from 18% to 12%. The judgment does not provide or prescribe any method of calculating such amount payable by the petitioner. The petitioner is free to raise the dispute if there is a wrong calculation made by the respondents.” 5. For the forgoing reasons, we dismiss this review petition along with connected application(s), if any. (Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 02.04.2025 Manan Manan Mahajan 2025.04.02 23:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document