Section 135 of GST – Presumption of culpable mental state

0

Section 135 of GST – Presumption of culpable mental state. Complete Details for GST Section 135 as per GST Act 2017. In this GST Section you may find all details for Presumption of culpable mental state as per GST Act 2017Detailed Analysis of GST Section 135 of GST Act 2017. We Provide Complete Details for All GST Section’s and In this article you may find all details for GST Section 135Check Section Wise Analysis of GST Act 2017, Chapter Wise Analysis of GST All Sections. In this article you may find complete details regarding Section 135 of GST Act 2017 – Presumption of culpable mental state, gst all sections and definitionsNow Check more details from below…..

Must Read – List of all sections of GST

Section 135 of GST – Presumption of culpable mental state

Statutory provision

Section 135 of GST

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.

Analysis and Updates

Introduction

In this section, the framers of law have cast the responsibility upon the shoulders of the one who is alleged of culpable mental state to prove otherwise.

Analysis

Now, once the law has stated that in case of any prosecution which requires the existence of a culpable mental state, the Court would presume the existence of it.

Under the old revenue laws, the burden to prove was on the one who alleges it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [(2013) 31 taxmann.com 67 (SC)] stated that “Burden to prove invocation of extended period on Department. The assessee cannot be asked to bring evidence to prove his bona fide. Similarly it is a cardinal postulate of law that the burden of proving any form of mala fide lies on the shoulders of the one alleging it.”

The accused can prove that he had no such mental state in respect of a particular act for which he is charged. The expression “Culpable Mental State” is defined inclusively to cover “intent, motive, knowledge of fact, belief in or reason to believe”. It also covers facts which exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not based on probabilities.

Hence, a very landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would lose its relevance in the cases covered by this section.

Comparative Review

Section 9C of the Central Excise law has a identical provision. Under the old laws the onus to prove non-existence of Culpable Mental State is cast on the assessee only.

Recommended Articles –

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here