https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756754 Statutory official-language rules preserving English for communications to persons in non-Hindi-speaking regions required appellate orders covered by Section 3(3) of the Official Languages Act, 1963 to be issued in both Hindi and English. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) served the orders only in Hindi on persons in Andhra Pradesh, service was held impermissible and the orders could not operate against them until English copies were furnished. The court applied Article 344, Rule 6 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, and Rule 3(3) to protect effective communication and the commencement of challenge limitation. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 00:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756754 Statutory official-language rules preserving English for communications to persons in non-Hindi-speaking regions required appellate orders covered by Section 3(3) of the Official Languages Act, 1963 to be issued in both Hindi and English. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) served the orders only in Hindi on persons in Andhra Pradesh, service was held impermissible and the orders could not operate against them until English copies were furnished. The court applied Article 344, Rule 6 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, and Rule 3(3) to protect effective communication and the commencement of challenge limitation. Case-Laws GST Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756754