ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The appellant is a Co-operative Bank. In the Writ Petition filed by them, the prayer sought was mainly a declaration that no service tax is leviable on any one of the activities that are carried on by the appellant. Considering the nature of the dispute involved, by his judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge relegated the appellant to pursue the statutory remedies that are available. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. As we have already stated, the factual controversy is whether some of the activities that are carried on by the appellant attracts service tax leviable under the Finance Act. While the appellant contends that they are outside the coverage of service tax, the learned Standing Counsel contends otherwise. It is also the contention of the appellant that the issue canvassed by them is W.A.No.1918/14 -2-
already decided in their favour by the Delhi Court and that judgment was confirmed by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents. However, that judgment is also attempted to be distinguished by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. In our view, considering the nature of the controversy that is raised, we feel that in order to resolve the same, adjudication of factual disputes is necessary and that such an adjudicatory process can be carried out only before a statutory authority and it is therefore that the learned Single Judge declined jurisdiction and relegated the appellant to pursue the alternate remedies that are available. This reasoning of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE