Section 135 creates a legal presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state in prosecutions under the CGST Act. A culpable mental state includes intention, knowledge, motive, belief, or awareness regarding the commission of an offence.

Normally, in criminal law, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the necessary intention to commit the offence. However, under this section, the court may presume that the accused possessed the required guilty intention. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove otherwise.

This provision is particularly important in cases involving fake invoices, fraudulent ITC claims, tax evasion, or deliberate suppression of facts. Since proving intention is often difficult, the law allows courts to presume guilty intent based on the circumstances unless the accused establishes innocence.

The objective is to strengthen enforcement against organized tax fraud and prevent offenders from escaping liability by merely denying knowledge or intention. However, taxpayers still have the opportunity to present evidence demonstrating that the act was unintentional or occurred without their knowledge.

Example:
A taxpayer is found using multiple fake invoices to claim ITC. The court may presume that the taxpayer knowingly participated in the fraud unless evidence proves otherwise.

Key Point:
The burden of disproving guilty intent may shift to the accused in GST prosecutions.

In One Line:
Courts can presume guilty intention in GST offences unless the accused proves otherwise.