Section 135 reverses the usual burden on intent: once the prosecution proves the act, the court presumes the guilty mind, and the accused must disprove it.
Key points
- Under section 135 of the CGST Act, 2017, in a prosecution for an offence requiring a culpable mental state, the court presumes it, but the accused may prove that he had no such mental state.
- "Culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge and belief; a fact is proved only when the court believes it beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on a preponderance of probability (Explanation).
- The Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal (2025) left the validity of section 135 open, as no prosecution was then before it.
The provisions
135Presumption of culpable mental state
Statutory text
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-
(i) the expression "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact;
(ii) a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
*Enforced w.e.f . 1st July, 2017.
Statutory text as published on the CBIC tax information portal, as on 03.10.2026; the numbered notes record each amendment. Official source
Common questions
- Must the prosecution prove intent in a GST offence?
- No. Under section 135 of the CGST Act the court presumes the culpable mental state, and the accused must prove its absence.
Commentary and case notes checked against the judgments and CBIC sources on 04.10.2026.
What it means
Similar presumptions in the Customs Act (section 138A) and the Central Excise Act (section 9C) have been applied by the courts; the prosecution must still prove the foundational facts of the offence.