Section 144 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with the presumption to be made by a court regarding certain documents used as evidence in proceedings under the GST law.
The provision becomes relevant when a document has been produced by a person under the CGST Act or another law, seized from the custody or control of a person, or received from a place outside India during proceedings, and that document is subsequently tendered by the prosecution as evidence against the person concerned or another person being jointly tried.
In such circumstances, Section 144 requires the court to make certain presumptions unless the contrary is proved. These presumptions concern the truth of the contents of the document, the authenticity of signatures and handwriting, and the execution or attestation of the document. The section also provides that a document may be admitted in evidence even if it is not duly stamped, provided it is otherwise admissible in evidence.
Section 144 is therefore primarily an evidence-related provision. It does not itself determine whether a person has committed a GST offence or is guilty of a particular violation. Instead, it establishes certain evidentiary presumptions when specified documents are produced by the prosecution in a court proceeding.
What Is Section 144 of the CGST Act?
Section 144 is titled “Presumption as to documents in certain cases.”
It provides a special rule concerning documents that are:
- produced by a person under the CGST Act or any other law;
- seized from the custody or control of a person under the CGST Act or any other law; or
- received from a place outside India during proceedings under the CGST Act or any other law.
The provision becomes operative for its evidentiary purpose when such a document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence against the person or another person who is being jointly tried.
Once these conditions are satisfied, the court is required to make the presumptions specified in Section 144 unless the contrary is proved.
When Does Section 144 Apply?
Section 144 does not apply merely because a document exists or because a document has been obtained during a GST investigation.
There is a specific sequence contemplated by the provision:
- A qualifying document is produced, seized or received from outside India.
- The document falls within one of the three categories mentioned in Section 144.
- The document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence.
- The document is tendered against the person concerned or another person jointly tried with that person.
- The court then applies the statutory presumptions, unless the contrary is proved.
This distinction is important because Section 144 is concerned with the use of the document as prosecution evidence in a court proceeding, rather than creating a general presumption about every document obtained by GST authorities.
Documents Produced by a Person
The first category under Section 144 covers a document that is produced by any person under the CGST Act or any other law for the time being in force.
This can include documents that are submitted or produced during a statutory proceeding.
For example, a person may provide:
- books of account;
- invoices;
- agreements;
- statements;
- business records;
- transaction-related documents; or
- other records required during proceedings.
If such a document subsequently becomes prosecution evidence in a case covered by Section 144, the statutory presumption can apply.
The wording is broad because the provision refers to documents produced under the CGST Act or any other law for the time being in force.
Documents Seized From a Person
The second category covers documents that have been seized from the custody or control of any person under the CGST Act or another law.
GST investigations can involve inspection, search and seizure under the applicable provisions of the CGST Act.
Where documents are lawfully seized and later tendered by the prosecution in evidence, Section 144 can become relevant.
Example
Suppose GST authorities conduct a search in connection with an investigation and seize certain business records from the premises.
Later, prosecution proceedings are initiated and the prosecution tenders one of those documents as evidence.
If the conditions of Section 144 are satisfied, the court applies the presumptions provided by the section unless the contrary is proved.
Documents Received From Outside India
The third category covers documents received from any place outside India during proceedings under the CGST Act or any other law.
This is relevant because GST-related transactions can involve:
- overseas suppliers;
- foreign customers;
- international business arrangements;
- import transactions;
- foreign accounting or commercial records; and
- cross-border documentation.
If a relevant document is received from outside India during proceedings and is later tendered by the prosecution in evidence, Section 144 may apply.
The provision does not require the document itself to have been created in India. The statutory language specifically recognises documents received from a place outside India.
Requirement That the Document Be Tendered by the Prosecution
This is one of the most important aspects of Section 144.
The document must be tendered by the prosecution in evidence against the person concerned or another person who is tried jointly with that person.
Therefore, Section 144 is not simply a rule that automatically authenticates every document obtained by GST authorities.
The statutory presumptions arise in the context specified by the section, namely where the qualifying document is tendered by the prosecution as evidence.
This is why Section 144 should be understood as an evidentiary rule for prosecution proceedings, rather than a general GST document-validation provision.
Presumption Regarding the Truth of the Contents
Section 144 provides that, unless the contrary is proved by the person concerned, the court shall presume the truth of the contents of the document.
This is one of the principal presumptions under the section.
Simple Example
Suppose a document records a particular transaction and that document falls within Section 144.
If the prosecution tenders the document in evidence and the statutory conditions are satisfied, the court is required to presume the truth of its contents unless the contrary is proved.
This does not mean that the accused is permanently prevented from challenging the document.
The statutory wording itself makes the presumption rebuttable by stating “unless the contrary is proved.”
What Does “Unless the Contrary Is Proved” Mean?
The phrase is important because the presumption under Section 144 is rebuttable.
The law does not state that the contents of the document must always be treated as conclusively true.
Instead, the court initially makes the statutory presumption unless the contrary is proved.
Therefore, a person against whom the document is relied upon can challenge the document and attempt to establish that the presumed fact is incorrect.
This could involve evidence or circumstances showing that:
- the contents are inaccurate;
- the document does not represent the actual transaction;
- the document was not prepared by the person alleged;
- the signature is not genuine; or
- the document was not executed or attested by the person it purports to identify.
The court ultimately considers the evidence in accordance with the applicable law.
Presumption Regarding Signature and Handwriting
Section 144 also provides a presumption concerning the signature and handwriting appearing on the document.
Unless the contrary is proved, the court shall presume that:
- a signature purporting to be that of a particular person is in that person’s handwriting;
- other portions purporting to be in the handwriting of a particular person are in that person’s handwriting; and
- where the document is executed or attested, it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been executed or attested.
This provision can be significant where the authenticity or authorship of a document becomes relevant to a prosecution.
Presumption About Execution or Attestation
Section 144 goes beyond signatures.
Where a document is stated to have been executed or attested by a particular person, the court can presume, unless the contrary is proved, that it was executed or attested by that person.
For example, suppose an agreement is produced as prosecution evidence and the agreement purports to have been executed by a particular individual.
If the conditions of Section 144 are satisfied, the statutory presumption concerning execution can apply.
Again, the presumption is not stated to be conclusive because the person concerned may prove the contrary.
Documents Need Not Always Be Duly Stamped for Admission
Section 144 contains another important provision.
It states that the court shall admit the document in evidence notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, provided the document is otherwise admissible in evidence.
This is a specific evidentiary rule.
However, the wording includes an important qualification:
“if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence.”
Therefore, Section 144 should not be interpreted as making every unstamped document automatically admissible.
The document must still satisfy the other applicable requirements of admissibility.
Section 144 Does Not Make Every Document Automatically Genuine
A common misunderstanding is that Section 144 makes any document obtained by GST authorities automatically genuine.
That is not the correct way to understand the provision.
The section applies only when its statutory conditions are satisfied, including the requirement that the qualifying document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence.
Even then, the presumptions are subject to the statutory phrase “unless the contrary is proved.”
Therefore, Section 144 creates a legal presumption; it does not convert every document into incontrovertible proof.
Section 144 and GST Prosecution
Section 144 is particularly relevant in the context of GST prosecution proceedings.
The CGST Act contains provisions dealing with offences and prosecution, including Section 132.
Where a prosecution case involves documentary evidence falling within Section 144, the provision can affect how the court approaches that documentary evidence.
However, Section 144 by itself does not establish that an offence has been committed.
The prosecution still has to establish the relevant ingredients of the offence under the applicable law.
Section 144 concerns the evidentiary treatment of qualifying documents.
Section 144 and Section 132
Section 132 deals with punishment for certain offences under the CGST Act.
Section 144 deals with the evidentiary presumption concerning specified documents.
The two provisions therefore perform different functions.
| Provision | Main subject |
|---|---|
| Section 132 | Punishment for specified GST offences |
| Section 144 | Presumption concerning certain documents used as evidence |
For example, a prosecution under Section 132 may involve invoices, books of account, agreements or other documents.
If a document falls within Section 144 and is tendered by the prosecution in the manner specified by the section, the court may apply the statutory presumptions.
Section 144 and Section 67
Section 67 deals with inspection, search and seizure under the CGST Act.
Section 67 may therefore become relevant at the stage when documents are located or seized during GST proceedings.
Section 144 operates at a different stage.
Section 67
Deals with powers of inspection, search and seizure.
Section 144
Deals with presumptions regarding qualifying documents when tendered by the prosecution in evidence.
Therefore, the two provisions can operate in the same broader case but serve different purposes.
Section 144 and Section 70
Section 70 gives a proper officer the power to summon a person to give evidence or produce a document or other thing during an inquiry.
Section 144 does not provide a summons power.
Instead, it deals with the evidentiary treatment of certain documents once the conditions of the section are met.
Therefore:
Section 70 → Power to summon and obtain evidence
Section 144 → Presumption concerning specified documents tendered in prosecution evidence
Section 144 and Section 145
Section 145 is another important provision that follows Section 144.
Section 145 deals with the admissibility of microfilms, facsimile copies, computer printouts and information stored electronically as documents and evidence.
This is particularly relevant in modern GST cases because business records are increasingly maintained electronically.
Section 144 and Section 145 should therefore be understood separately.
Section 144
Deals primarily with presumptions concerning specified documents.
Section 145
Deals with the treatment and admissibility of specified forms of reproduced or electronically stored information as documents and evidence.
The statutory framework places these evidence-related provisions next to each other in Chapter XXI.
Section 144 and Electronic Records
Section 144 itself does not specifically list electronic records in the way Section 145 does.
For electronic records, Section 145 is particularly relevant because it expressly addresses:
- microfilms;
- reproductions of images;
- facsimile copies;
- computer-produced statements; and
- information stored electronically in a device or media.
Therefore, a business should not treat Section 144 as the main provision governing electronic evidence.
Instead, Section 145 should also be examined when the evidence consists of electronic records.
Section 144 and the Burden of Proof
Section 144 creates a rebuttable presumption.
The court is directed to presume specified facts unless the contrary is proved by the person concerned.
This means that, once the statutory conditions are fulfilled, the evidentiary position concerning the document is different from a situation where no statutory presumption exists.
However, it is important not to describe Section 144 as shifting every aspect of the prosecution’s burden of proof.
The provision specifically creates presumptions about:
- the truth of the contents;
- handwriting and signatures; and
- execution or attestation.
The ultimate determination of guilt still depends on the applicable criminal law and the evidence in the case.
Practical Example – Business Records
Suppose GST authorities seize a set of business records during a lawful proceeding.
The prosecution later relies on one of those records in a criminal proceeding under the GST law.
If the document satisfies the requirements of Section 144, the court may presume the truth of its contents unless the contrary is proved.
If the document also contains a signature purporting to belong to a particular person, the statutory presumption regarding the signature may also apply.
Practical Example – Signed Agreement
Suppose a prosecution relies on an agreement that was seized during GST proceedings.
The agreement bears the signature of a person and states that the person executed the document.
If Section 144 applies, the court is required to make the statutory presumption regarding the signature and execution unless the contrary is proved.
The person can nevertheless seek to establish that the signature or execution is not genuine.
Practical Example – Foreign Document
Suppose GST proceedings involve an international transaction.
A relevant document is received from outside India during the proceedings.
Later, the prosecution tenders the document as evidence.
If the requirements of Section 144 are satisfied, the court may apply the presumptions specified by the section.
The fact that the document originated outside India does not by itself prevent Section 144 from applying; the provision expressly covers documents received from a place outside India during proceedings.
Practical Example – Unstamped Document
Suppose a document that falls within Section 144 is tendered by the prosecution, but the document is not duly stamped.
Section 144 provides that the court shall admit it notwithstanding the stamping issue if it is otherwise admissible in evidence.
Therefore, the absence of proper stamping does not, by itself, prevent admission where Section 144 applies and the document otherwise satisfies the applicable requirements.
Does Section 144 Apply Only to Documents Seized by GST Officers?
No.
Section 144 covers three categories:
- documents produced by any person under the CGST Act or another law;
- documents seized from the custody or control of any person under the CGST Act or another law; and
- documents received from outside India during proceedings under the CGST Act or another law.
Therefore, limiting Section 144 only to documents seized by GST authorities would be too narrow.
Can a Person Challenge a Document Covered by Section 144?
Yes.
The statutory presumption is expressly subject to the words “unless the contrary is proved.”
Therefore, the person against whom the document is tendered can seek to rebut the statutory presumption.
For example, depending on the circumstances, the person may dispute:
- the truth of the contents;
- the authenticity of the signature;
- the handwriting;
- the execution of the document;
- the attestation; or
- other relevant aspects of the document.
The appropriate evidence and procedure will depend on the particular court proceeding.
Is the Presumption Conclusive?
No.
Section 144 uses a rebuttable formulation.
The court is directed to presume the specified facts unless the contrary is proved.
Therefore, the presumption is not equivalent to an irrebuttable or conclusive declaration that the document and every statement within it must be accepted regardless of contrary evidence.
Section 144 and Joint Trial of Another Person
The section also expressly covers a document tendered by the prosecution against the person concerned or any other person who is tried jointly with him.
This means that the statutory provision is not restricted to the person from whose custody a document was produced or seized.
Where the statutory conditions are met, the document may be relevant to another person who is being tried jointly.
This is an important feature of the wording of Section 144.
Importance of Document Preservation for Businesses
Section 144 highlights the importance of maintaining proper business records.
Businesses should ensure that:
- invoices are properly maintained;
- accounting records are accurate;
- agreements are preserved;
- supporting documents are available;
- electronic records are backed up;
- transaction records are consistent; and
- documents submitted to tax authorities are accurate.
Poor documentation can create significant difficulties if the same records later become part of prosecution proceedings.
What Businesses Should Do During GST Proceedings
If a business is involved in a GST investigation or prosecution-related proceeding, it should maintain a clear record of:
- documents provided to authorities;
- documents received from authorities;
- documents seized;
- statements made;
- agreements and contracts;
- accounting records;
- invoices and related documents; and
- electronic records.
The business should also ensure that factual statements and documentary submissions are accurate and internally consistent.
Where a matter has progressed to prosecution, professional legal advice may be appropriate because evidentiary and criminal-procedure issues can become significant.
Section 144 and the Concept of Rebuttable Presumption
The central concept behind Section 144 is the rebuttable presumption.
The court is required to presume specified facts when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
However, the person against whom the presumption operates is not completely deprived of the opportunity to challenge it.
The person can prove the contrary.
This balance allows the law to recognise the evidentiary value of documents obtained through statutory proceedings while still permitting the affected person to challenge the presumptions.
Key Features of Section 144
The important features of Section 144 can be summarised as follows:
| Feature | Section 144 |
|---|---|
| Subject | Presumption as to documents in certain cases |
| Nature | Evidentiary provision |
| Relevant authority | Court |
| First category | Document produced by any person |
| Second category | Document seized from custody or control |
| Third category | Document received from outside India |
| Additional requirement | Document tendered by prosecution in evidence |
| Main presumption | Truth of document’s contents |
| Signature | Presumed to be genuine in specified circumstances |
| Handwriting | Presumed to be that of the relevant person |
| Execution/attestation | Presumed in specified circumstances |
| Stamping | Document may be admitted despite not being duly stamped if otherwise admissible |
| Nature of presumption | Rebuttable |
| Challenge | Contrary may be proved |
Difference Between Section 144 and Section 145
| Basis | Section 144 | Section 145 |
|---|---|---|
| Main subject | Presumption regarding certain documents | Admissibility of specified reproductions and electronic records |
| Focus | Truth, signature, handwriting and execution | Whether specified copies/electronic information can be treated as documents/evidence |
| Relevant documents | Documents produced, seized or received from outside India in specified proceedings | Microfilms, facsimiles, computer printouts and electronically stored information |
| Purpose | Evidentiary presumption | Evidentiary admissibility |
| Relationship | Creates specified presumptions | Provides rules for specified forms of documentary/electronic evidence |
Section 145 is therefore an important companion provision when a GST prosecution involves electronic or reproduced records.
Difference Between Section 144 and Section 155
Section 155 deals with the burden of proof in specified GST matters.
Section 144, on the other hand, creates particular presumptions concerning certain documents tendered in prosecution evidence.
Therefore, the two provisions should not be treated as identical.
Section 144
Deals with presumptions concerning documents.
Section 155
Deals with burden of proof in specified matters under the GST Act.
The applicable evidentiary rule depends on the facts and legal issue involved.
Difference Between Section 144 and Section 136
Section 136 deals with the relevancy of statements under certain circumstances.
Section 144 deals with presumptions regarding certain documents.
Both are evidence-related provisions within the GST Act, but they address different forms of evidence and different legal questions.
Is Section 144 a Penalty Provision?
No.
Section 144 does not prescribe a penalty.
It does not itself impose:
- tax;
- interest;
- late fee;
- penalty; or
- imprisonment.
Instead, it establishes an evidentiary rule for documents used in prosecution proceedings.
The punishment for specified GST offences is dealt with by other provisions, particularly Section 132 and related provisions.
Is Section 144 Applicable to Every GST Notice?
No.
Section 144 is not a general provision for ordinary GST notices, return scrutiny or tax assessment.
Its wording specifically concerns documents that are tendered by the prosecution in evidence and the presumptions the court is to make in the circumstances specified.
Therefore, it should not be automatically invoked in every GST adjudication or departmental proceeding merely because documents have been submitted.
Compliance Checklist for Businesses
Businesses can take the following practical steps to reduce documentary disputes:
1. Maintain Accurate Records
Keep accounting and transaction records complete and accurate.
2. Preserve Original Documents
Where possible, preserve original contracts, invoices and other important records.
3. Maintain Electronic Backups
Keep reliable backups of important electronic records.
4. Verify Submitted Documents
Before submitting records to a tax authority, verify that they are complete and accurate.
5. Maintain Consistency
Ensure that contracts, invoices, accounting records and GST returns do not contain unexplained contradictions.
6. Preserve Investigation Records
Maintain copies of documents submitted or correspondence received during GST proceedings where legally appropriate.
7. Take Care With Statements
Statements and documents provided during an investigation can become relevant in later proceedings.
8. Seek Legal Advice Where Necessary
If a GST matter has progressed into prosecution proceedings, the evidentiary consequences can be significant and professional legal advice may be appropriate.
Important Points to Remember About Section 144
- Section 144 is titled “Presumption as to documents in certain cases.”
- It is an evidentiary provision under the CGST Act.
- It applies to specified documents used in prosecution evidence.
- The first category covers documents produced by any person under the CGST Act or another law.
- The second category covers documents seized from the custody or control of any person.
- The third category covers documents received from outside India during proceedings.
- The document must be tendered by the prosecution in evidence.
- The prosecution may rely on the document against the person concerned.
- The provision also covers another person who is tried jointly with that person.
- The court shall presume the truth of the contents unless the contrary is proved.
- The court shall also make the statutory presumption concerning signatures and handwriting.
- The provision covers the presumption regarding execution or attestation of documents.
- The presumptions are rebuttable.
- Section 144 also provides for admission of an otherwise admissible document even if it is not duly stamped.
- Section 144 does not make every document automatically genuine or conclusive.
- Section 144 does not itself establish that a GST offence has been committed.
- Section 144 does not itself impose tax, interest or penalty.
- Section 67 and Section 70 can be relevant at earlier investigation stages, but they serve different purposes.
- Section 145 separately deals with microfilms, facsimiles, computer printouts and electronically stored information.
- Section 155 separately deals with burden of proof in specified GST matters.
- Businesses should maintain accurate and reliable documentary records because business documents can become relevant in later proceedings.
- Section 144 has been in force from 1 July 2017.
👉 Read More → Section 144 – Presumption as to documents in certain cases
Conclusion
Section 144 of the CGST Act is an important evidence-related provision dealing with the presumption to be made regarding certain documents in GST prosecution proceedings.
It applies where a document has been produced by a person under the CGST Act or another law, seized from the custody or control of a person, or received from outside India during proceedings, and the document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence against the person concerned or another person being jointly tried.
Once the statutory conditions are satisfied, the court is required, unless the contrary is proved, to presume the truth of the contents of the document, the authenticity of signatures and relevant handwriting, and the execution or attestation of the document in the circumstances specified by Section 144.
The provision also states that a document can be admitted in evidence even when it is not duly stamped, provided that it is otherwise admissible in evidence. This does not mean that every unstamped document automatically becomes admissible; the statutory qualification regarding otherwise admissible evidence remains important.
The most important feature of Section 144 is that its presumptions are rebuttable. The person against whom the document is relied upon can seek to prove the contrary. Therefore, Section 144 should not be understood as making every document conclusive proof of the facts stated in it.
Section 144 should also be distinguished from other GST provisions dealing with investigation, summons, electronic evidence, burden of proof and prosecution. Section 67 deals with search and seizure, Section 70 deals with summons, Section 132 deals with specified GST offences, Section 145 addresses specified forms of documentary and electronic evidence, and Section 155 deals with burden of proof in specified matters.
For businesses, the practical significance of Section 144 is that proper maintenance, accuracy and consistency of records are extremely important, particularly when a GST investigation may potentially lead to prosecution. Documents submitted to authorities can later become part of evidentiary proceedings, making accurate record-keeping an important part of GST compliance.
Based on Google's Helpful Content System, this article emphasizes user value, transparency, and accuracy. It incorporates principles of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness).
Why Choose Sarkari Bakery?
Official Information
Government schemes & banking information based on official sources.
Step-by-Step Guides
Simple application process explained for every service.
Regular Updates
Content updated whenever official rules or services change.
People-First Content
Helpful, transparent and user-focused content.