Central GST Department required to issue documents including orders both in Hindi and English Language

[Bimal jain]

The Hon’ble 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 - 2024 (8) TMI 458 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT allowed the writ petition and held that, the Central GST Department is required to issue the Order or any other document both in English and Hindi language.

Facts:

Subodh Enterprises (“the Petitioner”) and other Petitioners filed a writ petition wherein the question relating to passing of the appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, in Hindi language, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is being addressed.

The dispute arose based on the fact that after the conclusion of the Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) provided the order in Hindi language. However, the Petitioner not being conversant with Hindi, requested for the copy of order in English but such copies were not provided to the Petitioner.  Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a writ petition.

Issue:

Whether the Central Authority is required to pass the order in both English and Hindi language?

Held:

The Hon’ble 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 - 2024 (8) TMI 458 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT held as under:

• Observed that, as per Section 3(3) of Government and the Official Language Act, 1963, (“the Act”) English language shall be used in addition to Hindi relating to documents stated below:

• Resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative or other reports or press communiques issued or made by the Central Government or by a Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company;
• Administrative and other reports and official papers laid before a House or the Houses of Parliament;
• Contracts and agreements executed, and licenses, permits, notices and forms of tender issued, by or on behalf of the Central Government or any Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company.

• Further Observed that, as per Rule 6 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (“the Rules”) 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.
• Further Observed that, as per Rule 3(3) of the Rules the 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.
• Noted that, the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that any communications of a Central Government office requires 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.
• Further Noted that, the aforesaid 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.
• Opined that, communication can also be sent both in English and Hindi which 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.
• Held that, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide the copy of the order in English.
• Clarified that, the period for calculating limitation would start from the date when such orders are made available to the Petitioner.

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])