ZynoviqAgreement is not truth. The law is, as of a date.
Twenty professionals can agree and still be wrong, especially after a recent notification. So agreement is not where certification ends. Every final answer is checked by our legal desk against the authoritative source, tied to it permanently, dated, and re-versioned when the rule moves.
What the legal desk does
- Finds the governing authority: the section, rule, notification, circular or ruling the answer rests on.
- Checks it says what we claim: no invented or misread citations.
- Checks it is current: not amended, rescinded or overtaken.
- Records a valid-as-of date: the period for which the answer holds.
- Flags conflicts: where authorities point different ways, the case goes back to adjudication or is marked ambiguous.
No citation, no certification. A case whose answer cannot be tied to an authority is not certified.
Sources we rely on
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Statute | CGST Act, IGST Act, state GST Acts |
| Rules | CGST Rules |
| Rate and exemption notifications | Central Tax (Rate) notifications |
| Clarifications | CBIC circulars and instructions |
| Decisions | Relevant court and tribunal judgments; advance rulings used with care, as they bind only the parties |
| Professional guidance | Institute guidance where it reflects settled practice |
| The customer's written policy | For configured business processes where no public rule applies, your documented configuration and policy, named in the record |
We maintain a dated library of these sources so every certified answer can be traced to the exact version that applied. For GST we rely primarily on official sources published by CBIC and the GST Council.
One case, from first draft to certified answer
Synthetic case written for illustration. The legal desk re-verifies it before any real use.
Case GST-ITC-00417. A manufacturer in Tamil Nadu employs 400 workers at its factory. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 requires a canteen where 100 or more workers are ordinarily employed. It hires a registered caterer. Invoice: ₹2,00,000 + 5% GST, ₹10,000. Can the manufacturer claim the ₹10,000 as input tax credit, and how should it be posted?
What happened to it
| Stage | Who | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Created | Case writer (CA, 9 years) | Facts, documents and answer fields; passed machine checks |
| Solver A | CA, 6 years | Blocked: food and beverages, section 17(5)(b). Confidence 80% |
| Solver B | CA, 11 years | Allowed: proviso for legally required facilities; Circular 172/04/2022. Confidence 90% |
| Disagreement found | Platform (fixed rule) | Routed to a third solver |
| Solver C | CA, 8 years | Allowed: same basis as B. Confidence 85% |
| Review | Senior reviewer | Agrees with B and C; notes that any cost recovered from workers needs separate treatment |
| Adjudication | Adjudicator, 15 years | Allowed, with written reasoning and an edge note |
| Evidence | Legal desk | Section 17(5)(b) and proviso; CBIC Circular 172/04/2022-GST. Valid as of FY 2026–27 |
The certified record
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Certified answer | Credit allowed: ₹10,000; post to the input credit account |
| Legal basis | CGST Act s.17(5)(b) proviso; Circular 172/04/2022-GST |
| Common wrong answer | "Blocked credit: food and beverages" |
| Severity if wrong | High: credit lost on every such invoice |
| Agreement | 2 of 3 solvers, plus review and adjudication |
| Confidence score | 92 / 100 (how the confidence score works) |
| Difficulty | Hard: a proviso changes the general rule |
| Valid as of | FY 2026–27 Q3 (October–December 2026) |
| Contributors | Anonymous IDs only |
| Pool | Held-out (benchmark) |
| Version | 3 |
Solver A made exactly the mistake most AI systems make. Keeping that answer in the record lets us explain AI failures precisely, and build training data that teaches the difference. Each customer's test uses a slightly different version of the case (320 workers in Karnataka and ₹1,84,500, say) with the same legal point, which keeps packs traceable and fair. How packs stay confidential.
How ambiguity is handled
Some questions have no settled answer: the law is silent, authorities conflict, or qualified professionals reasonably differ. We do not force these into a single answer.
- Consensus and dissent recorded on the item. The record carries the majority view, the dissenting view, who held each (by anonymous ID) and the reasoning on both sides.
- Kept out of pass/fail scoring. Ambiguous cases sit in a separate set. They test whether your AI recognises uncertainty and escalates, and they are never counted as failures.
- Reported separately. Your report lists ambiguous cases on their own, with the positions professionals took.
- An ambiguity index per topic. Planned. A published measure of how much genuine disagreement each topic carries, so you know where a confident AI answer should worry you.
When the law changes
A certified answer is only certified for a period. GST rates, conditions and interpretations change through notifications, circulars, rulings and budget amendments. An answer that was right last quarter can be wrong today, so every record carries a date and every change triggers a revision.
- Watch.
The legal desk tracks new notifications, circulars and significant rulings in each live domain.
- Find what is affected.
Each change is matched to the certified records it touches, by topic and legal basis.
- Revise through the full chain.
Affected records go back through independent solving, review and, where needed, adjudication, with the new authority cited. A rule change never produces a quietly edited answer.
- Release a new version.
The updated record gets a new version number and a new valid-from date. The old version is kept, with its end date and the change reason.
- Tell customers.
Subscribers receive a change note and, where relevant, a targeted re-run on the affected cases with an impact note. Regulatory Regression Service · Continuous evaluation.
Regular refresh
| What | How often |
|---|---|
| Rule-change review | As changes are issued |
| Test pool refresh (new cases, retired cases) | Every quarter |
| Full review of a pack's legal basis | At least once a year |
| Change notes to subscribers | With each refresh |
What every record shows about its history
| Field | Example |
|---|---|
| Version | 3 |
| Valid from | 1 January 2027 |
| Valid until | Current, or the date it was superseded |
| Change reason | New circular clarifying the proviso |
| Previous answer | Kept in history |
For testing, your AI is marked against the law that applies now, and past reports stay explainable against the law that applied then. For training data, you can see which records changed and retrain on current law only. For audit, anyone can trace which answer applied on which date, and why. Evidence.
What it is not
Our certified answers apply the law to synthetic facts for testing and data. They are not tax advice on your own position. Terms of use.
Evidence and currency: questions people ask
Which sources can support a certified answer?+
Statutes, rules, rate and exemption notifications, CBIC circulars and relevant judgments. Advance rulings are used with care, because they bind only the parties. A case whose answer cannot be tied to an authority is not certified.
What if authorities point in different directions?+
The case goes back to adjudication, or is marked ambiguous if the law is genuinely unsettled. Ambiguous cases are never scored as simply right or wrong.
How quickly do you respond to a new GST notification?+
The legal desk reviews affected answers as changes are issued. Our target is to re-certify affected answers within 10 working days. The target is stated in continuous-evaluation contracts; it is not a guarantee.
Can we see earlier versions of an answer?+
Yes. Old versions are kept with their dates, so past reports stay explainable against the law that applied then.
Is the example case on this page real?+
No. It is synthetic, written to illustrate the method, and re-verified by the legal desk before any real use. Years of practice shown are illustrative too.