Point of Law: Sub-Section (2) of Section 145 of 'the Act' speaks about withdrawal from duty in contravention of Section 29 of 'the Act'. Section 29 of 'the Act' provides that no Police Officer shall withdraw himself from the duties thereof except with the written permission of the Commissioner or the Deputy Inspector General and Superintendent of Police or of some other Police Officer empowered by the Inspector General or the Commissioner to grant such permission. Thus, it is clear that a Police Officer cannot withdraw himself from the duties except with the written permission of his superior Officer. Here, in the present case, not only the petitioner did not report to the duty after his casual leave was over, may be on any ground, had not sought for any permission even ex post facto, nor has he attempted to explain the absence for the same. The lame excuse shown by the petitioner to the effect that he suffers from sciatica. However, the said assertion is also again without any support of contemporaneous record issued by competent Medical Officer.

ORDER :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Sujit Ghosh, assisted by Mr. Paritosh R. Gupta, learned advocate for M/s. Gupta Law Associates for the writ applicant and Mr. Priyank Lodha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant seeks quashing of the order of the respondent No.1 in rejecting the application (declaration) filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Scheme, 2019”) for settlement of excise duty as conveyed by letters dated 05.05.2020 and 11.06.2020 and further challenging the legality of the statement issued in Form-SVLDRS-2 dated 07.02.2020 issued by respondent No.1 and seeks further direction to process the declaration made by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1.

3. The reliefs as sought for by the petitioner read as under:

“(a) issue a writ of Certiorari, or a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in the impugned statement in Form SVLDRS-2 dated 07.02.2020 to quash the same as illegal and pass such further orders;

(b) issue a writ of Certiorari, or a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in the first impugned rejection letter dated 05.02..2020 to quash the same as illegal and pass such further orders;

(c) issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in the second impugned rejection letter dated 11.06.2020 to quash the same as illegal and pass such further orders;

(d) issue a writ of Mandamus, or direction as the Court deems fit to the Respondent No.1 to process the petitioner's declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 in accordance with law without being influenced by the objections raised in impugned statement in Form SVLDRS-2 dated 07.02.2020 and the first impugned rejection letter dated 05.05..2020 as also the second impugned rejection letter dated 11.06.2020 and pass necessary orders without being constrained by the time limits prescribed under the Finance Act, 2019 in relation to the SVLDRS Scheme.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of polymers, crop protection products insecticides and fungicides, herbicides, resins etc. The petitioner is carrying its manufacturing activities from its unit situated at Plot No.11, Manjusar, Savli, GIDC, Tundav, Vadodara, Gujarat. With respect to the manufacturing activities, the audit proceedings were carried out for the period from June 2014 to June 2017 by the office of the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise. During the audit, some discrepancies were found and accordingly, on 28.06.2019, the petitioner was issued a letter bearing F.No.V(a)21224/1A/E.I.Dupont/CV/L1/1819, directing to discharge the tax liability with applicable interest and penalty as mentioned in the aforesaid letter. The relevant paragraphs i.e. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the letter read as under:

“3. During the audit period, you have made stock transfer of the finished goods to your various depots under Central Excise invoices and sold the same through the depots at higher rate but not discharged duty liability on the differential value as petitioner Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the basis of details provided by you Email, the differential duty on the goods sold through various Depot during the audit period comes to Rs.2,41,34,126/, which is required to be paid by you (Details are attached as per Annexure-C). You are requested to submit the sample copies of Sales Invoices issued from the factory corresponding to the Depot Sales Invoices as mentioned in the mailed Excel Sheet.

4. You have not paid the Central Excise Duty on batch wise samples drawn for in-house testing, which were retained and destroyed subsequently. The excel sheet containing the details of batch wise samples drawn for in-house testing was E- mailed and as per the details furnished by you, the total duty liability comes to Rs.