GSTAT Appeal: English Translation Rule 23(1) Explained

The GSTAT and the Language Hurdle

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is a highly anticipated reform within the GST framework. After a significant period without a dedicated appellate body for GST matters, the Tribunal has commenced accepting appeals under the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. As benches are established nationwide and the registry begins processing filings, procedural questions are emerging, with the language of documentation being a prominent point of discussion.

Many taxpayers, particularly those located in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, often receive their original adjudication orders, appellate orders, and notices in Hindi. When these taxpayers wish to appeal to the GSTAT, they are frequently required to submit a certified English translation of the order they are challenging, along with their appeal memorandum. This creates a challenging situation where a state authority issues an order in Hindi, exercising its rights under the Official Languages Act, 1963, while the appellant is expected to bear the cost and effort of translating that very order to seek recourse from the Tribunal.

A recent communication from the GSTAT, dated 22.04.2026 (F. No. GSTAT/CPGRAM/2025-26/136), has officially documented the Tribunal’s stance on this matter. This article aims to clarify, in straightforward terms, the provisions of Rule 23(1), the Tribunal’s clarification through its response to a grievance, the current legal standing, and practical steps for appellants.

Understanding Rule 23(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025

Rule 23(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 dictates the format for documents submitted to the Tribunal’s Registry. The rule stipulates that any document filed with the Tribunal, including the order being appealed, show cause notices, replies, written submissions, annexures, and supporting evidence, must be accompanied by a certified English translation if it is not already in English. This rule does not provide any exemptions for orders issued by departmental authorities in Hindi or any other regional language. Based on a straightforward interpretation, the responsibility to provide a translation rests with the appellant filing the appeal, regardless of whether the language barrier was initiated by the appellant or the issuing authority.

The Tribunal’s Registry functions as the initial gatekeeper for filings. Its role is to ensure compliance with procedural requirements, not to assess the merits of the case. If an order is presented in Hindi without a certified English translation, the Registry is procedurally empowered to deem the appeal defective and request the appellant to rectify the defect within a specified timeframe.

The Grievance That Prompted Clarification

A taxpayer named Shri Asim Zafar from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, lodged a grievance through the CPGRAM portal (Grievance No. PMOPG/E/2026/0043871, dated 16.03.2026). His argument was that if a departmental authority issues an order in Hindi, the burden of translating that order should not fall on the appellant. He pointed out that the departmental authority is the originator of the document, and the appellant has not “created” the language barrier. Nevertheless, the maintainability of his statutory right to appeal was being made conditional on rectifying a defect originating from the issuing authority.

This issue carries significant practical implications. Certified legal translations can be costly, often ranging from ₹15 to ₹40 per word. A typical adjudication order under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, can span 30 to 80 pages. For a small taxpayer contesting a demand of even ₹5 to 10 lakhs, the translation expenses alone could pose a substantial barrier to accessing the appellate remedy. Therefore, the grievance highlighted a concern about access to justice, beyond mere paperwork.

The Tribunal’s Response: Key Clarifications

The Tribunal’s response, dated 22.04.2026, outlines the legal position on five key points:

• Mandatory Nature of the Rule: The Tribunal affirmed that Rule 23(1) is mandatory and unambiguous, requiring every document not in English, including Hindi departmental orders, to be accompanied by a certified English translation. The Tribunal clarified that it lacks the authority to amend or interpret this rule leniently, as such legislative and procedural formulations are vested with the parent Ministry, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. The Tribunal cannot unilaterally alter a rule established by the executive branch.
• Procedural Safeguard, Not a Penalty: The Tribunal defended Rule 23(1) as a standard procedural requirement in appellate practices across India. It stated that parties seeking a statutory remedy must present a complete and compliant set of documents to facilitate the Bench’s proceedings without language-related obstacles. The reply clarified that this is not a penalty on the appellant for a defect caused by the issuing authority, but rather a consequence of two distinct procedural codes operating concurrently: one governing original orders and another governing their reception by the appellate forum.
• Protection of Hindi Orders by Statute: The Tribunal explained that the issuance of adjudication and appellate orders in Hindi is governed by the Official Languages Act, 1963, and related rules, which permit the use of Hindi for certain official communications. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot direct departmental authorities to issue orders exclusively in English. The language of the original order and the language of appellate filings are governed by separate statutory frameworks.
• Transitional Leniency: In a significant administrative concession, the Tribunal has directed that for an initial period of six months, appeals filed with original Hindi orders and documents will be accepted without immediate insistence on translation, provided the Members of the Bench can read and understand Hindi. This relief, formalized through Office Order dated 20.01.2026 and further instructions dated 10.03.2026, offers practical respite to appellants from Hindi-speaking states during this transitional phase.
• Committee for Systemic Amendments: A committee has been established via Office Order No. 147/2025, dated 08.09.2025, to review various representations, including those seeking amendments to Rule 23(1) to accommodate Hindi and other vernacular languages. The formation of this committee suggests that the situation is not static and may evolve through formal rule-making processes.

Is Translation Mandatory? The Current Practice

From a strict legal perspective, Rule 23(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025, mandates a certified English translation for any document not in English. The Tribunal’s clarification on 22.04.2026 reaffirms this, stating that the Tribunal itself cannot alter this rule. However, in practice, a six-month transitional leniency is in effect, allowing Hindi appeals to be accepted by Benches whose Members can read Hindi, as per Office Order dated 20.01.2026 and instructions dated 10.03.2026.

These two positions are not contradictory. The rule itself has not been amended; the Tribunal is exercising discretion in its enforcement during a transitional period. Once this period concludes, or if an appeal is listed before a Bench unable to read Hindi, the rule will be applied in full. Appellants choosing to forgo translation now should be prepared to provide it if directed by the Bench or Registry.

Practical Guidance for Appellants

Taxpayers and professionals filing appeals with the GSTAT during this transitional period should consider the following:

• Appeals in Hindi-Speaking States: If your order is in Hindi and the relevant Bench is located in a Hindi-speaking state (e.g., Allahabad, Lucknow, Patna, Jaipur, Bhopal), you may utilize the transitional relief and file the appeal with the original Hindi order. However, it is advisable to have a translation ready, as this leniency is administrative and may be withdrawn.
• Appeals in Non-Hindi-Speaking States: If your order is in Hindi and you are filing before a Bench in a non-Hindi-speaking state (e.g., Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata), it is safer to file a certified English translation with the appeal to avoid the risk of the appeal being marked defective by the Registry.
• Certification of Translation: The translation must be “certified.” This typically involves a certificate from the translator or an attestation from an advocate, chartered accountant, or other authorized professional confirming the accuracy of the translation. Uncertified translations from automated tools may not be accepted.
• Cost Considerations: If the cost of translation is substantial relative to the demand, appellants may consider applying for condonation of any minor delay caused by translation work, supported by an affidavit detailing the practical difficulties. Tribunals often adopt a pragmatic approach to genuine hardship at the initial stage.
• Stay Informed: Monitor the GSTAT website and notification pages for updates. The committee formed under Office Order No. 147/2025 may propose amendments to Rule 23(1) concerning Hindi or other vernacular languages.

Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.

This article is for general information based on available source information. It should not be considered legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.