Indore Tax Associations Launch Protest Against English-Only GST Appeal Mandate
In a significant development, the Madhya Pradesh Tax Law Bar Association and the Commercial Tax Practitioners Association (CTPA) have initiated a formal protest against a newly implemented procedural requirement. This mandate stipulates that all GST appeal documents must be translated into English before submission to the Appellate Tribunal.
Advocate A K Lakhotia Voices Strong Opposition
Advocate A K Lakhotia, serving as president of the MP Tax Law Bar Association, articulated the collective frustration. "Forcing taxpayers in a predominantly Hindi-speaking state to translate every legal document into English constitutes a direct violation of the fundamental spirit of accessible justice," he asserted. "Most small and medium-scale traders simply do not possess the financial resources to afford professional translation services. This imposition creates an unnecessary and significant financial burden, while also causing substantial delays in obtaining much-needed relief." Lakhotia emphasized that the rule effectively transforms language from a tool of communication into a formidable barrier to justice.
Rule 23 Deemed Impractical and Financially Damaging
The associations have specifically targeted Rule 23 of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Procedure Rules, labeling it as "impractical" and a "financial blow" to taxpayers across the Hindi heartland. In a decisive move, they submitted a comprehensive memorandum to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Thursday, formally outlining their grievances and demanding reconsideration of the mandate.
Memorandum Highlights Linguistic Reality and Legal Context
The detailed memorandum, which was also marked for the attention of the GST Council and various state tax commissioners, presents a compelling argument. It contends that the English-translation mandate blatantly ignores the linguistic reality of Madhya Pradesh. The state is officially classified as a "Region A" state under the Official Languages Act of 1963, a designation that acknowledges its primary use of Hindi in official proceedings.
Tax experts supporting the protest point out a critical inconsistency: the majority of state-level GST orders, notices, and related documents are originally issued to taxpayers in the Hindi language. Therefore, requiring appellants to then translate this entire corpus of documentation into English for an appeal introduces a redundant, costly, and procedurally obstructive layer. This additional step places an undue strain on individuals and businesses already navigating complex tax disputes.
The protest underscores a growing tension between standardized procedural rules and regional linguistic practices within India's federal tax structure. The associations argue that justice should not be contingent on linguistic proficiency or the ability to pay for translation, especially in regions where Hindi is the primary language of administration and commerce.
