Sections 133 to 136 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Four provisions that do not create offences but decide how a prosecution runs — and two of them explain why what is said under summons matters so much.
133 — wilful disclosure of information or return contents by persons handling statistics, information returns or the common portal: up to six months' imprisonment or ₹25,000 fine or both, with prior sanction required to prosecute. 134 — no court shall take cognizance except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, and no court inferior to a Magistrate of the First Class shall try the offence. 135 — the court shall presume a culpable mental state, with a defence available to the accused; a fact is proved only beyond reasonable doubt. 136 — a statement made and signed on a s.70 summons is relevant to prove the truth of its contents in defined circumstances.
Section 133: confidentiality, and who it binds
Section 133(1) applies to:
- any person engaged in connection with the collection of statistics under s.151, or its compilation or computerisation;
- any officer of central tax having access to information specified under s.150(1) — the information return provisions;
- any person engaged in connection with the provision of service on the common portal, or the agent of the common portal.
The offence: wilfully disclosing any information or the contents of any return furnished under the Act, otherwise than in execution of his duties under those sections or for the purposes of prosecution.
The punishment: imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to ₹25,000, or both.
Section 133(2) — the sanction requirement: a Government servant shall not be prosecuted except with the previous sanction of the Government; a person who is not a Government servant shall not be prosecuted except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner.
Why it matters commercially: the section is the statutory basis for confidentiality of information filed on the portal and in information returns, and it binds the portal service providers and their agents as much as departmental officers. Where confidential business data reaches a competitor through a disclosure, s.133 is the provision engaged.
Section 134: cognizance and forum
"No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or the rules made thereunder except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, and no court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any such offence."
Two rules in one sentence.
Sanction, again. Section 132(6) already requires the Commissioner's previous sanction to prosecute. Section 134 requires it for the court to take cognizance. So sanction is a jurisdictional fact at both ends — and its existence, date and the material before the sanctioning authority are legitimate questions in any prosecution.
Forum. Only a Magistrate of the First Class or above may try a GST offence. That is a floor on the forum, and it matters because s.69(2) requires production before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours, and s.69(3)(b) gives the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner the powers of a station house officer for bail in a non-cognizable and bailable case. Section 69 arrest →
Section 135: the presumption, and its limits
"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."
The Explanation:
(i) "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."
Explanation (ii) cuts both ways, and it is the more interesting limb.
Against the accused, it sets the standard for the facts the prosecution must establish — beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities.
And on the defence side, the accused must "prove" the absence of the mental state — a burden which, on the ordinary approach to reverse-onus provisions, is discharged on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Which offences require a culpable mental state? Those in s.132(1) framed around intention to evade tax — clauses (a) and (f) expressly, and clauses (h) and (i), which turn on the person knowing or having reasons to believe. Clause (d) — tax collected and not paid beyond three months — is closer to an objective failure.
How the presumption is answered: with the same contemporaneous record that supports the s.137(4) due diligence defence — board reviews, delegation, systems, reconciliations, disclosures made, action taken. Section 137 →
Section 136: when a summons statement becomes evidence
"A statement made and signed by a person on appearance in response to any summons issued under section 70 during the course of any inquiry or proceedings under this Act shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains..."
In two situations:
(a) when the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which the court considers unreasonable; or
(b) when the person is examined as a witness in the case and the court is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice.
What this means in practice.
A summons statement is not automatically substantive evidence in a prosecution. It becomes relevant to prove the truth of its contents only in the two situations named — the maker's unavailability, or a court's decision, on the circumstances, that it should be admitted while the maker is a witness.
But it is always available for other purposes. It is used in show cause notices, in arrest notes, and to contradict a witness who says something different at trial.
And that is why the care taken when the statement is recorded is decisive. Section 70(2) deems the inquiry a judicial proceeding under s.193 and s.228 IPC; s.70(1A) requires the person to state the truth; and s.136 makes the signed statement capable of proving its contents. A statement read, corrected on the face of the document and signed accurately is a manageable document; one signed without reading is not. Answering a summons → Section 70 →
Key takeaways
- Section 133 penalises wilful disclosure of information or return contents by officers, statistics personnel and common portal service providers and agents.
- Section 134 requires the Commissioner's previous sanction for a court to take cognizance, and fixes the forum at Magistrate of the First Class or above.
- Section 135 makes the court presume a culpable mental state, defined to include intention, motive, knowledge and reason to believe.
- Explanation (ii) requires facts to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not on a preponderance.
- Section 136 makes a signed s.70 statement relevant to prove its contents where the maker is unavailable, or where the court admits it in the interest of justice.
- The presumption and the statement together make the contemporaneous record the real defence.
Read next
- Section 132: Offences and the Threshold for Prosecution
- Section 137: Offences by Companies and the Due Diligence Defence
- Answering a GST Summons: Questions to Avoid
- Section 70: Summons and the Judicial Proceeding
Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on the CGST Act as amended to 31 March 2026 (ICAI Bare Law, 12th edition). Evidence and criminal-procedure positions are stated in general terms and are not advice in any proceeding.