Record what the official record shows for every judgment the officer relied on, and print the verification log — plus a draft ground where a citation fails.
Type in every judgment the officer relied on, record what the official record shows, print the verification log for your file — and, where a citation fails, a draft ground built
v2.1 — ITAT appeal period corrected to two months from the end of the month of communication; sample values no longer carry into your log; consultation link; no blank letterhead on paper. Rules re-checked 1 November 2026: still no CBDT or CBIC instruction on AI-written orders.
Type in every judgment the officer relied on, record what the official record shows, print the verification log for your file — and, where a citation fails, a draft ground built
Last statutory update: 4 Nov 2026 — v2.1 — ITAT appeal period corrected to two months from the end of the month of communication; sample values no longer carry into your log; consultation link; no blank letterhead on paper. Rules re-checked 1 November 2026: still no CBDT or CBIC instruction on AI-written orders.
Statutory context
In *Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.*, **2026 INSC 668** (2 July 2026), the Supreme Court set aside both an NCLT and an NCLAT order built on fabricated precedent, holding such a decision to be "no decision in the eyes of the law" and liable to be set aside "even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process"; it declared zero tolerance, held it misconduct for an advocate to cite unverified AI-generated authority, and directed the Bar Council of India to prescribe norms. In *Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India*, **2026 INSC 947**, the Court applied the same rule to a **central** adjudicating officer — an Additional Commissioner of Customs — set aside a ₹425.28 crore Order-in-Original and the High Court's confirmation of it, and remanded to a different officer of equal rank. In *Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat*, **2026:GUJHC:53490-DB**, the Gujarat High Court quashed the whole chain of GST orders, incorporated the department's instructions of 18.08.2026 into its order, and held that any violation would amount to contempt of the Court and to misconduct. The Supreme Court's own Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 (3 June 2026) bind courts, tribunals and statutory commissions — and identify no equivalent supervisory mechanism for adjudication inside government departments. **As at 12 September 2026 no CBIC or CBDT instruction on the point has been found** (none found — not "none issued"); outside Gujarat the duty rests on the two Supreme Court decisions.