Section 135 of CGST Act - Presumption of Culpable Mental State
Section 135 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with the mental element in a GST prosecution. Where an offence under the Act requires a culpable mental state, the court is directed to presume that mental state, while the accused is expressly permitted to prove that the required mental state did not exist.
Text and effect of Section 135
In a prosecution for an offence under the CGST Act that requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of that mental state. The accused may, however, defend the prosecution by proving that he or she had no such mental state in relation to the act charged as an offence.
The Explanation to Section 135 states that "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. It further provides that a fact is treated as proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt, and not merely on a preponderance of probability.
What is a "culpable mental state"?
For Section 135, the expression is wider than intention alone. It expressly covers intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, belief in a fact, and reason to believe a fact. In criminal-law terminology, this is the mental or mens rea element that may form part of the offence alleged under the CGST Act.
How the statutory presumption operates
The prosecution must first be one for an offence under the CGST Act for which a culpable mental state is required. In such a case, Section 135 creates a statutory presumption as to that mental state. The provision does not state that the accused is deprived of a defence; instead, it specifically permits the accused to prove the absence of the relevant mental state with respect to the act charged.
Standard of proof stated in Section 135
The Explanation contains an unusually important evidentiary rule. For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt. The statutory language expressly contrasts this with proof merely by a preponderance of probability.
Relationship with nearby prosecution provisions
Section 135 forms part of Chapter XIX of the CGST Act. For a fuller understanding of GST prosecution, it may be read together with Section 134 on cognizance of offences, Section 136 on relevancy of statements in certain circumstances, Section 137 on offences by companies, and Section 138 on compounding of offences.
Practical significance
Section 135 is relevant when the alleged GST offence contains a mental element. The precise issue in a prosecution will depend on the offence charged, the evidence, and whether the accused can establish absence of the required intention, motive, knowledge, belief, or reason to believe. The provision therefore affects how the mental ingredient of an offence is considered at trial; it does not replace the need to examine the other statutory ingredients of the offence.
Related CGST Act provisions
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 | Section 133 | Section 134 | Section 136 | Section 137 | Section 138
This page is a general statutory reference. The application of Section 135 depends on the charge, evidence, amendments in force for the relevant period, and the facts of each case.