Cited-Authority Audit — check the case law in a GST, customs or income-tax order

The order

Kind of order

GST, State tax officer is the usual case — change it if your order is from a Central officer, customs or income tax.

Order number / reference

Used on every printed page, and as the name this order is saved under on this device.

Date the order was communicated to you

The appeal clock runs from communication, not from the order date.

Taxpayer / appellant name

More about the order

State

The Gujarat instruction of 18 Aug 2026 binds Gujarat State tax officers; elsewhere the Supreme Court authorities carry the ground.

Order date

Issuing authority (designation)

GSTIN / PAN (optional)

Provision the order is passed under (optional)

The order records, or the officer has admitted, using an AI tool

Leave this off unless it is on the record. The defect in the authority is the ground either way — this box is the only thing that puts the words on the paper.

Authorities

One card per judgment the order names

Sign-off

Remembered on this device

Letterhead & signature

Print as a taxpayer's own note (no firm letterhead)

Firm name

Address

Contact

FRN

Your address (printed under your name)

Verified by

Designation

Place

Date

Prepared for the file of

Name the order
Check each judgment
Print the log

Things to check

Want the reply or appeal drafted around this ground? Ask CA Karan Gupta to draft the reply — the log above is where he would start. The Excel-and-highlighter way takes an afternoon and leaves nothing on the file; this took the length of the order.

Preview — what prints

How this works, and what the courts said

Where this sits

Where to verify — free and official. The lookup happens on these sites; this page never fetches anything.

Supreme Court — sci.gov.in and the digital reports at scr.sci.gov.in
High Courts — hcservices.ecourts.gov.in and each Court's own site
Tribunals — itat.gov.in · cestat.gov.in · gstat.gov.in
Free full text — indiankanoon.org

Manupatra AI's Citation Verifier (May 2026) checks whether a citation exists and parses — the two checks that catch the least; it does not test the proposition, the status, or whether the officer dealt with your authorities.

Taxmann and EY India announced a Draft Bot to validate notices and draft responses on 18 July 2025; there is no publicly available Draft Bot as at 9 September 2026.

What the courts have said

2 July 2026 — Supreme Court. Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668. A decision resting on fabricated authority is "no decision in the eyes of the law", to be set aside "even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process". The Court directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee on members submitting fake material.
August 2026 — Gujarat High Court. Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer, 2026:GUJHC:53490-DB. The whole chain of GST orders was quashed; the department's instructions of 18.08.2026 were incorporated into the order and held to be binding, breach amounting to contempt and to misconduct. instruction text not published — this page paraphrases, never quotes
September 2026 — Supreme Court. Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 947. A ₹425.28 crore customs Order-in-Original and the High Court's confirmation of it were both set aside; the matter was remanded to a different officer of equal rank.
3 June 2026 — Supreme Court Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026. They bind the Supreme Court, High Courts, district courts, tribunals and statutory commissions — and identify no equivalent supervisory mechanism for adjudication inside government departments.
5 March 2026 — Gujarat High Court, interlocutory. Singhvi Trandelink LLP v. State of Gujarat, 2026 Taxo.online 585: the Court called the reasoning "flawed and deceptive", issued notice and granted interim relief. Not a quashing, and it appears on no printed page here.
December 2024 — Bengaluru ITAT, the first in the income-tax lane. Buckeye Trust v. PCIT-1, Bangalore, ITA No. 1051/Bang/2024: four authorities at page 28 exist in neither court's record; the order was recalled on 7 January 2025 for "inadvertent errors". The Tribunal did not say a tool was used, the attribution is press reporting, and whether the citations came from the departmental representative or the bench is unsettled. It appears on no printed page here.

No departmental instruction outside Gujarat

As at 1 November 2026 no CBIC or CBDT instruction on the use of AI by adjudicating authorities has been found. Record that as "none found", not "none issued" — outside Gujarat the duty rests on the two Supreme Court decisions above.

The other half of this

Filing something you drafted with an AI tool? The firm-side verification record lives here: Can I post this?

Your own authority, and what the Supreme Court said about it

Where one of your own authorities fails a check, it stays on your log with the remark “our authority — corrected before filing” and it is kept out of the ground. The Supreme Court has called citing unverified authority misconduct for the person who files it (2026 INSC 668).

Disclaimer

This page records your own verification of the authorities in an order and drafts a ground for a professional to review. It does not check any citation, does not give legal advice, and does not know your limitation, stay or condonation position. Statutory rules and reported decisions change; verify against the latest notifications and the official record before you rely on any of it. Your data never leaves this browser — nothing you type is uploaded or stored anywhere except this device. Built and maintained by a practising Chartered Accountant. Prepared using cakarangupta.com/tools.