Anticipatory Bail Recipient Gets Court Direction for Expedited CGST Inquiry Completion Within Three Months

The HC disposed of a writ application under Article 226 by directing the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara to complete an inquiry into the applicant's complaint within three months. The applicant, who had been granted anticipatory bail in an NDPS case, claimed being wrongly implicated and sought expedited resolution of both criminal investigation and departmental inquiry. The court issued this direction without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, allowing direct service of the judgment for compliance purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ application under Article 226 for relief.
2. Criminal investigation and departmental inquiry ongoing.
3. Allegation of being wrongly implicated in litigation.
4. Request for inquiry completion within a specified time frame.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant sought relief through a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to direct the respondent authorities to conclude an investigation/inquiry under a complaint. The applicant prayed for the admission of the special civil application and issuance of necessary writs in the interest of justice.

2. The court noted the existence of a criminal investigation and a departmental inquiry concerning the subject matter of the litigation. The applicant was implicated as an accused in a First Information Report (FIR) under specific sections of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High Court had previously granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with the FIR.

3. The applicant contended that they were wrongly involved in the ongoing litigation. A representation was made to the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara, highlighting this concern. The applicant sought an inquiry into the matter to be conducted promptly and in accordance with the law.

4. The court disposed of the writ application by directing the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara, to review the complaint lodged by the applicant and complete the inquiry within three months from the date of the judgment. It was clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and direct service of the judgment was permitted for compliance purposes.

---