--- name: tax-assessment-reply-drafter title: Tax Assessment Reply Drafter description: Drafts a reply to a tax assessment or scrutiny notice — before any order has been passed — addressing every query raised, referencing the client's actual supporting documents, and flagging the response deadline and any procedural defect in the notice itself. Use this whenever a user has received a tax notice seeking explanation or documents — including phrasings like "draft our reply to this scrutiny notice", "respond to this income tax query notice", "we've received a GST show cause notice, help us reply", or "prepare our response before the deadline in this notice". India-specific. Distinct from tax-appeal-grounds-drafter, which challenges an order that has already been passed — this responds while the proceeding is still open. Fires for any pre-order tax notice, income tax or GST, seeking explanation, documents, or a response. author: rohasnagpal author_url: https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/tree/main/plugins/vclo-by-rohas/skills/tax-assessment-reply-drafter license: MIT version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: general practice: litigation language: en --- # Tax Assessment Reply Drafter Read and apply the [India Counsel instructions](../../agents/india-counsel.md) before substantive analysis or drafting. ## Jurisdiction gate This skill applies Indian law and procedure only. Before substantive analysis or drafting, confirm that the matter is governed by Indian law and identify the relevant State, court, tribunal or authority where material. If the matter is governed by another jurisdiction, or the governing jurisdiction is unclear, do not apply Indian rules. State the scope mismatch and ask for the governing jurisdiction or route the request to an appropriate jurisdiction-neutral skill. I am using the **Tax Assessment Reply Drafter** skill from Rohas Legal AI: replies to assessment and scrutiny notices (India). Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response. ## What this does Drafts a reply to a tax assessment or scrutiny notice issued before any order has been passed — addressing every query the notice raises, referencing the client's own supporting documents, and keeping a factual, cooperative tone appropriate to a fact-gathering stage rather than an adversarial one. It structures and presents the client's actual explanation; it does not invent facts, documents, or legal characterisations to fill a gap. ## Before you start **The notice itself.** The actual text — there is no reply to draft without seeing exactly what is being asked or alleged. **The client's actual explanation and supporting facts**, from the client. This skill presents what the client says; it does not construct an explanation from the notice alone. **The response deadline stated in the notice**, or confirmed with the user if unclear. These notices commonly carry short, strict deadlines, and missing one has real consequences. Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is available: **which specific provision the notice is issued under**, if not obvious from the text — this helps calibrate what the reply actually needs to cover. ## Method **1. Read the whole notice once before drafting anything.** A global point — the notice period is too short, or a query lacks the particularity the law requires — can apply across several queries at once, and drafting query by query on a first pass misses this. **2. List every query or point raised in the notice, numbered, before drafting any response.** **3. For each query, state the client's explanation precisely, using only what the client has actually provided.** Do not invent a supporting fact or document to make a response feel more complete. **4. Reference the specific documents being submitted in support of each response**, and flag any document referred to but not yet available. **5. Where a query raises a legal point — such as a disallowance under a specific provision — address it on the specific facts rather than asserting a legal conclusion the user has not confirmed.** Flag where a legal authority would strengthen the response but is not currently available, rather than supplying one from memory. **6. Note the response deadline prominently, and flag whether the facts suggest more time is needed to compile a complete response** — but frame requesting an extension as a decision for the client or lawyer to make, not something this skill decides unilaterally. **7. Keep the tone factual and cooperative, appropriate to a fact-gathering stage, unless the client specifically wants legal argument made at this stage too.** This is a materially different posture from tax-appeal-grounds-drafter, which is written against an order that has already been decided. **8. Flag any procedural defect in the notice itself** — a short notice period, lack of specificity in a query, the wrong provision cited — as a point the client may want raised, without asserting its legal effect from memory. ## Output **1. Header.** Notice reference, issuing authority, taxpayer, date of the notice, deadline for reply, date of this reply. **2. Response to each query.** Numbered to match the notice, with the client's explanation and the supporting documents referenced for each. **3. Documents enclosed or referred to but not yet available.** **4. Procedural points, if any.** Flagged, not resolved. **5. Points requiring verification.** Any legal characterisation not yet confirmed, and current requirements for an extension request if relevant. ## Do not Do not invent facts, explanations, or documents the client has not actually provided. Do not assert a legal conclusion the client or lawyer has not confirmed, especially the interpretation of a specific provision. Do not miss the deadline stated in the notice without flagging it prominently. Do not adopt an adversarial tone at the fact-gathering stage unless the client specifically wants that. This reply is cooperative and factual by default. Do not omit a query raised in the notice without flagging the risk of leaving it unaddressed.