jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3948 OF 2010 Mr. Udairaj N.Shetty .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. M. H. Gami i/by Vinod Mistry & Co. s for the petitioner Mr. V. A. Sonpal, ‘A” Panel Counsel for the respondents CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & S. J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: 24 th June, 2010 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused petition. 2. The petitioner has suffered concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner has already transferred the incidence of tax on the customers and liability of such taxes has also been admitted in the returns filed and the same are assessed. No evidence is produced on record or brought to our notice to show that the findings of facts recorded are perverse. No fault can be found with the concurrent findings of facts. On the contrary, findings of fact recorded are based on documentary evidence which cannot be reappreciated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court not being a court of appeal is not expected to substitute its own findings. 3. During the course of hearing, petitioner was asked as to whether he would like to avail the remedy of civil court to establish its contentions so that liberty in that event can be reserved in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner declined to avail the said remedy. Under these circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the petition in limine with no order as to costs. 4. Order accordingly. ( S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (V. C. DAGA, J.)