The Gujarat High Court has stated that there is a need to lay down the guidelines for using AI by quasi judicial authority in a case where the CGST commissioner relied on AI generated case laws without reading actual judgements.
The bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has observed, “we find that this is an appropriate case, wherein some directions are called for regulating/prescribing some parameters for quasi- judicial authorities while placing reliance on the judgements either of the High Courts or of the Supreme Court of India, while dealing with legal issues raised by an assessee. We also call upon learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Ankit Shah to apprise this Court on this concern by the next date of hearing.”
The petitioner, M/S Marhabba Overseas Private Limited has pointed out that has pointed out very worrying trend adopted by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, while passing the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, by placing reliance on the non- existing judgements or though in existence, albeit not even remotely connected to the issues raised by the petitioner in his defence statement dated 22.09.2025.
While referring to four core defence submissions more particularly, the petitioner referred to in the impugned order, he has invited attention of this Court to the citations, upon which the reliance is placed while dealing with submissions made by the respondent- authority.
The defence submission recorded by the Officer in paragraph No.19.1 of the order, relates to the issuance of defective and unreasonable show-cause notice dated 29.06.2025, which was uploaded on GST Portal without annexing or supplying the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) to the assessee.
The defence submission has been rejected by the Officer by placing reliance on the judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association,
2019 S.C.C. OnLine SC 1744.
The petitioner submitted the citation appeared to be incorrect and instead page number is 274 instead of 1744. Though there is some error in recording the page number, the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court does not even remotely connects to the issue relating to the non-supplying of the RUDs, but instead the same relates to the classification of the service and maintainability of the writ petition against the show-cause notice.
The court noted that the reasonings/findings recorded by the respondent-Commissioner, while dealing with the defence submissions, by placing reliance on the judgement/citations, is flawed and deceptive. It appears that the Commissioner, without reading the actual judgements, has followed the AI generated citations and case law.
The court granted interim relief in terms of paragraph No.17(c) till the final disposal of the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Marhabba Overseas Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2229 of 2026
Date: 20/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: S N SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
Counsel For Respondent: ANKIT SHAH
Read More: 18% GST On Paper Bags: AAR
