In an era where artificial intelligence promises to revolutionise legal practice, a disturbing pattern has emerged in Gujarat’s courtrooms. Tax commissioners are citing judgments that simply don’t exist, attributing Supreme Court rulings to wrong courts, and building legal arguments on fictional case law, all courtesy of AI-generated research that no human bothered to verify.
This development reportedly follows closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s warning to lawyers about AI dependence in petition drafting.
The controversy emerged during proceedings involving Marhaba Overseas Pvt Ltd. The company had received a notice on June 29, 2025, through the GST portal from the additional commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise. Following the company’s defense submission, the commissioner issued an adverse order on September 26, 2025.
According to reports, senior advocate Saurabh Soparkar and advocate Parth Bhatt represented the company in challenging this order before the High Court. They highlighted critical flaws in the commissioner’s citations.
Several judgments referenced in the order could not be located despite thorough searches.
More troubling was the discovery that some rulings were incorrectly attributed to the Gujarat High Court when they were actually Supreme Court or other court decisions.
The legal team argued that guidelines were urgently needed for quasi-judicial authorities.
They emphasised the dangers of blindly relying on AI-generated judgments that either don’t exist or have no relevance to the issues at hand.
The bench comprising Justice AS Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi found merit in these submissions. The judges characterized the situation as a worrying trend that demanded immediate attention.
The court observed that the commissioner’s reasoning and findings were fundamentally flawed and deceptive.
The judges noted that it appeared the commissioner had simply followed AI-generated citations without actually reading the referenced judgments.
Justice Supehia and Justice Trivedi said that this case warranted specific directions. They indicated plans to establish regulatory parameters for quasi-judicial authorities when citing High Court or Supreme Court judgments in legal matters involving assessees.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 13. GST counsel has been specifically asked to address these concerns during the upcoming session.
This case highlights growing judicial awareness about AI misuse in legal proceedings. It mirrors similar concerns raised by the Supreme Court regarding non-existent precedents being cited in AI-assisted petitions.
The Gujarat High Court’s intervention signals a broader judicial push for accountability in AI-assisted legal work. The proposed parameters could set important precedents for how quasi-judicial bodies handle legal citations in the digital age.
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Kejriwal’s PM Degree Plea https://www.vibesofindia.com/gujarat-high-court-dismisses-kejriwals-pm-degree-plea/
