Appellate Order Can't Be Issued Only In Hindi: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 cannot be issued in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Hindi only.The bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath.N. directed that the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) would not come into effect until English copies of the orders are served on the petitioners, and...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 cannot be issued in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Hindi only.
The bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath.N. directed that the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) would not come into effect until English copies of the orders are served on the petitioners, and the limitation for the petitioners to take steps against such orders would commence only when the copies of orders, in English, are served on the petitioners.
The petitioners/assessee approached the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act for redressing their grievances. The Commissioner (Appeals), after hearing the parties in these appeals, had passed handwritten orders in Hindi. As the petitioners are not conversant with the language, they had sought copies of the order in English. However, the copies, in English, were not furnished to the petitioners.
The petitioner was aggrieved by the non-supply of copies of the orders in English, and on various other grounds raised by them, the petitioners have approached the Court by way of the writ petitions.
The issue raised was whether the appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be issued in the State of Andhra Pradesh in Hindi only.
The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that Article 348 of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that orders, rules, regulations, and bye-laws would be in English, would not be applicable to adjudicatory orders and they could be furnished in Hindi. The report of the Law Commission of India (Report No.216, December 2008) mentioned that nothing prevents a government officer from passing orders in Hindi, as these orders can be challenged in the High Courts and Supreme Courts by producing English translations of the orders.
The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that Article 343 of the Constitution of India states that Hindi in Devanagari Script with international form of Indian numerals is the official language of the Union of India and the status of English is that of an associate language.
Rule 6 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 stated that both Hindi and English shall be used for all documents. It shall be the responsibility of the persons signing documents to ensure that such documents are made, executed, or issued both in Hindi and in English. Rule 3(3) stipulates that communications from a Central Government Office to a State or Union territory in Region C or to any office (not being a Central Government office) or person in such State shall be in English.
A reading of these provisions would make it clear that any communications of a Central Government office require to be in both Hindi and English normally. However, any communication from a Central Government office to any person in Region C shall be in English.
The court held that the provisions offer clear guidelines to officers working in Central Government offices in region C (within which the State of Andhra Pradesh is situated) that all communications to persons residing in such a region should normally be in English. However, communication can also be sent both in English and Hindi. It would require the Commissioner (Appeals) to either serve a copy of the order passed by him in English or to serve copies of the orders passed by him in both Hindi and English. In the circumstances, service of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only in Hindi language is not permissible.
The court directed that upon the service, it would be open to the petitioners to take such steps as they may deem appropriate, including approaching this Court by way of fresh writ petitions, against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Counsel For Petitioner: D S Sivadarshan
Counsel For Respondent: O Udaya Kumar
Case Title: M/s Subodh Enterprises Versus The Union Of India and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition Nos: 13043, 13046 & 14904/2024