2024 (8) TMI 458 - HC - GST

Language of appellate order - whether the appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be issued, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Hindi only? - HELD THAT - The Central Government, under Section 8 of the Act, had made Rules known as the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976. Rule 6 of the Rules states that both Hindi and English shall be used for all documents referred to in Section 3(3) of the Act and it shall be the responsibility of the persons signing such documents to ensure that such documents are made, executed or issued both in Hindi and in English. Apart from this, Rule 3(3) of the Rules 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. Thus there are 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, such communication can also be sent both in English and Hindi. This 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. These writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals), to furnish copies of the orders passed by him in these three writ petitions, in English, to the petitioners, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether appellate orders under Section 107 of the CGST Act can be issued in Hindi only in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of whether appellate orders under Section 107 of the CGST Act can be issued in Hindi only in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners had approached the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking redressal of grievances, and the Commissioner passed orders in Hindi, which the petitioners could not understand. The petitioners sought copies of the orders in English but were not provided, leading them to approach the High Court through writ petitions.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) justified issuing orders in Hindi based on various arguments, including references to constitutional provisions and the Official Languages Commission's recommendations. The Commissioner argued that orders can be challenged in higher courts with English translations, citing Article 348, Article 343, and Article 344 of the Constitution of India to support the use of Hindi in official communications.

3. The judgment delves into the historical context of language use in official matters, highlighting the Committee's opinion in 1965 that a complete changeover to Hindi was not practical. This led to the enactment of the Official Language Act, 1963, which allowed the continued use of English alongside Hindi. Section 3(3) of the Act mandates the use of both Hindi and English for various official documents and communications.

4. The judgment also references the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, which require documents to be in both Hindi and English. Rule 6 emphasizes the responsibility of signatories to ensure bilingual documents. Additionally, Rule 3(3) specifies that communications to region "C" should be in English, providing guidelines for language use in official communications.

5. Based on the legal provisions and guidelines, the High Court concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) must provide copies of orders in English to the petitioners within three weeks. The judgment stipulates that the orders would not take effect until served in English, and the petitioners' time limit to challenge the orders would start upon receiving English copies. The petitioners were granted the right to take appropriate steps, including filing fresh writ petitions if needed, against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. In conclusion, the High Court's decision ensures compliance with language requirements in official communications, balancing the use of Hindi and English in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment upholds the petitioners' right to understand and challenge orders effectively by mandating the provision of English copies, thereby safeguarding their legal interests and access to justice.