M/S. Masterminds vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority were unsustainable due to being issued in Hindi, a language not understood by the petitioners, and due to the alleged non-consideration of the grounds of appeal on merits. The Court found it necessary to remand the matter for fresh consideration in the interest of justice. The reasoning was that effective implementation of appellate orders requires them to be in a language understandable to the parties. The Court followed the precedent set in similar cases where orders were directed to be provided in English. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must issue orders in a language understood by the affected parties and consider all grounds of appeal on merits to ensure fairness and compliance with natural justice. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh hearing on merits, with directions to pass orders in English and to decide the appeals expeditiously. Any deposits made by the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions are to be dealt with in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Masterminds and M/s. Stru Fabs (p) Ltd, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals (1st respondent). The primary grievance was that the appellate orders were issued in Hindi, a language not understood by the petitioners, and that their grounds of appeal were not considered on merits. The petitioners also contended that even the translated copies of the orders were not exact translations. The respondents' counsel acknowledged that translated versions were issued and that the Appellate Authority itself noted they were not exact translations. The petitioners sought a remand for fresh consideration of their appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate orders issued in Hindi, which are not understandable to the petitioners, are valid and comply with principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the right to be heard and understand the decision, as per the principles laid down in similar cases like W.P.No.13043 of 2024 & batch dated 05.08.2024? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority failed to consider the grounds of appeal on their own merits, rendering the appellate decision unsustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the appellate orders being in Hindi, a language they do not understand, violates their right to comprehend the decision and effectively challenge it. They also contended that the Appellate Authority did not consider their grounds of appeal on merits. They relied on the order in W.P.No.13043 of 2024 & batch, which directed the issuance of orders in English. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents' counsel conceded that translated versions of the impugned orders were issued and confirmed that the Appellate Authority itself noted these were not exact translations. They did not otherwise contest the petitioners' claims regarding the language barrier or non-consideration of merits.