Andhra Pradesh Township And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax And Customs

Held

The Court held that while the Official Language Act, 1963, and the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, permit the use of Hindi, they also mandate the use of English. Specifically, Rule 3(3) of the Rules states that communications from a Central Government office to a State or Union territory in region 'C' (which includes Andhra Pradesh) or to any office or person therein shall be in English. The Court interpreted this to mean that communications to persons residing in such a region should normally be in English, or at least be provided in both English and Hindi. Therefore, serving an order solely in Hindi to a party not conversant with the language was impermissible. The Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to furnish English copies of the orders to the petitioners within three weeks. The operative effect of the orders was stayed until English copies were served, and the limitation period for the petitioners to take further steps would commence from the date of such service. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original appeals.

Facts

Three writ petitions were filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners, M/s Subodh Enterprises and Andhra Pradesh Township And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, received handwritten orders in Hindi. As they were not conversant with Hindi, they requested English copies, which were not provided. The Commissioner (Appeals) argued that orders could be issued in Hindi, citing constitutional provisions and various reports and judgments regarding the promotion of Hindi. The petitioners contended that the non-supply of English copies prejudiced their ability to understand and challenge the orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether an appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the State of Andhra Pradesh, can be issued solely in Hindi, and if not, whether the non-supply of an English translation constitutes a violation of the petitioners' rights. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the non-supply of English copies of the appellate orders, which were passed in Hindi, prejudiced them and prevented them from effectively understanding and challenging the decisions. They sought copies in English to facilitate their legal recourse. Revenue/State's (Commissioner Appeals) arguments: The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that Article 348 of the Constitution does not apply to adjudicatory orders, which can be furnished in Hindi. They relied on the Law Commission's Report No. 216, Article 343 of the Constitution regarding Hindi as the official language, Article 344 concerning the Official Languages Commission, a Presidential Order requiring 20% of work in Hindi in 'C' regions (including Andhra Pradesh), and Supreme Court judgments in Murasoli Maran vs. Union of India and M.N. Ravichandran vs. Union of India, arguing for the progressive increase in the use of Hindi. They also asserted there is no provision mandating orders to be exclusively in English.