Andhra Cricket Association vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And Customs(Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the impugned proceedings were not understandable to the petitioner due to being written in Hindi. Following the precedent set by a Division Bench in similar cases (W.P.Nos.9030 & 13065 of 2024, dated 30.01.2025), the Court deemed it fit to remand the matter. The Appellate Authority was directed to reconsider the grounds of appeal on merits and to issue the impugned orders in English, as required, to ensure they are understandable to the parties for effective implementation. The impugned orders of the Appellate Authority were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing on merits, with due opportunity to the appellant. The appeal is to be decided expeditiously in English. Any deposit made by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition will be dealt with in accordance with law. Interim orders, if any, were vacated.

Facts

The petitioner, Andhra Cricket Association, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs Appeals on October 25, 2024. The petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings were written entirely in Hindi, a language they could not understand, despite their submissions being made in English. They argued that the authority deliberately passed the order in Hindi, preventing them from understanding its consequences. The petitioner sought relief due to this lack of comprehension. Both parties acknowledged that similar matters had been previously disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings, issued in Hindi, are legally valid and understandable to the petitioner, thereby complying with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST regime? (Question of law and fact, potentially relating to procedural requirements for official communication). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the proceedings were incomprehensible due to being written in Hindi, despite their submissions being in English. They claimed the authority deliberately passed the order in Hindi, hindering their ability to understand and respond to its consequences. This lack of understanding, they asserted, rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, both parties referred to previous orders of the Division Bench concerning similar matters.