Reply to GST Show Cause Notices
and Income-tax notices — drafted like a litigator, grounded in the Acts.

GST: Show Cause Notices under CGST §73 (non-fraud) and §74 (wilful mis-statement / fraud), §74A (FY 2024-25 onwards) and DRC-01 intimations. Income-tax: §143(1), §142(1), §148, §139(9) and §143(2). Any other notice can be handled via the general document-reply workflow — upload the notice and the drafting engine will produce a para-wise responsive reply.

Enforced by a server-side drafting mandate. Every reply is generated as a numbered PARA-WISE REPLY answering every paragraph of the notice with the formal Admitted / Denied / “not admitted and put to strict proof thereof” triad, preceded by preliminary objections and followed by merits and prayer. If the notice text is missing, the para-wise section is refused rather than invented — every denial must cite a fact you supplied.

As of 2026-07-08, 17 sections of the CGST Act 2017 and 20 sections of the Income-tax Act 2025 are in the verified corpus — 37 tax-statute sections in total. The CGST coverage includes the SCN backbone: §§ 73, 74, 74A, 107 (appeals), 122, 129 and 130. The Income-tax Act 1961 is not in the verified corpus yet — for 1961-Act provisions, upload the provision text and it will be quoted exactly. IGST and state SGST Acts are not covered yet either; CGST provisions that apply through IGST §20 are covered.

No. LegalInk drafts only. There is no GSTN, TRACES or income-tax portal integration. Your CA or client submits the reply on the portal after review. Every draft is stamped “review all facts with your client before filing.”

Notice reply drafting is available on the 3-day free trial (no card required), on Professional (₹799/month) and on Enterprise. It is not available on the Free tier or the ₹299 Individual plan. Notice metadata extraction runs on all plans that can open the page; applying and editing extracted details into the draft requires Professional or Enterprise.

The 2026 record is not favourable. In Buckeye Trust v. PCIT (ITA No. 1051/Bang/2024), the ITAT Bengaluru order in a ₹669.27-crore matter was recalled after it was found to rely on non-existent AI-sourced precedents. In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668, the Supreme Court adopted a zero-tolerance posture toward filings that rely on unverified AI precedents. LegalInk’s discipline is to refuse on missing facts and stamp every draft for professional review — but nothing removes the CA’s responsibility to verify every section number and case citation before filing.

Yes. Devanagari drafting is a first-class output on LegalInk, including for tax notice replies. Sensitive-case redaction of victim identifiers is available on Professional and Enterprise.

Yes — see the LegalInk research post “GST §73 SCN reply guide” for a paragraph-by-paragraph walkthrough of preliminary objections, para-wise triad and prayer for a non-fraud SCN under CGST §73.