The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S SUBODH ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND ANDHRA PRADESH TOWNSHIP AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS vide WRIT PETITIONER Nos. 13043, 13046 & 14904 of 2024 dated 05.08.2024, provided the petitioners with relief by ensuring that they would receive the orders in a language they understood, which is essential for them to exercise their legal rights effectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) was required to comply with the legal provisions regarding language use in official communications.
Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioners challenged the issuance of appellate orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, in Hindi only, arguing that they were not conversant with Hindi and were therefore unable to understand the orders. The primary issue was whether such orders in the State of Andhra Pradesh could be issued solely in Hindi.
The petitioners, in three writ petitions, approached the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act for redressal of their grievances. The Commissioner passed handwritten orders in Hindi for these cases. The petitioners requested English translations, but these were not provided.
The Commissioner (Appeals) defended issuing the orders in Hindi, citing Article 343 of the Constitution, which designates Hindi as the official language of the Union of India. He also referred to the Presidential Order requiring 20% of official work to be conducted in Hindi in certain regions, including Andhra Pradesh.
Held that: The court observed that under the relevant legal provisions, particularly Section 3(3) of the Official Language Act and associated rules, communications and orders from Central Government offices in regions like Andhra Pradesh should be in English or in both English and Hindi.
The court concluded that the service of the order only in Hindi was not permissible and that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have provided an English version or versions in both languages.
The court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to furnish English copies of the orders within three weeks. It further ruled that the orders passed by the Commissioner would not take effect until the petitioners were served with English copies, and the limitation period for challenging the orders would only begin upon such service. The petitioners were also given the liberty to challenge the orders afresh once they received the English copies.
Legal Provisions Considered:
- Article 348 of the Constitution of India mandates that orders and other legal instruments are typically in English, although this article does not explicitly cover adjudicatory orders.
- Official Language Act, 1963, Section 3(3): This stipulates that both Hindi and English should be used for certain official documents and communications. Additionally, the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, specify that communications from Central Government offices in “C” regions (which includes Andhra Pradesh) should be in English or both languages.
To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 1738
