Presumption for undisclosed warehouse goods upheld where prior intimation was missing and belated notice was rejected.

Section 69A was applied to uphold seizure where goods were found in an undisclosed warehouse and the dealer had not furnished prior intimation of the new warehouse as required by section 97. The absence of an express time-limit in section 97 did not excuse keeping goods in the warehouse before notifying the authority, and the belated letter was treated as unreliable on the facts found. As both statutory conditions for the presumption were satisfied, the dealer could not displace the presumption of contravention under section 68 or obtain relief under section 97(bb). The seizure and sealing of the godown were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and sealing of the godown were illegal on the ground that the dealer had not given intimation of opening the new warehouse within any prescribed time, and whether relief was available under section 97(bb) despite the presumption under section 69A.

Analysis: Section 69A creates a presumption that goods found in an undisclosed warehouse have been transported and stored in contravention of section 68 where the dealer has not furnished the information required under section 97 regarding opening of a new warehouse. The absence of an express time-limit in section 97 did not permit a dealer to store goods in a new warehouse without first informing the authority. On the facts found, intimation was not furnished before the search, and the belated letter was not accepted as reliable. Both statutory conditions for the presumption were satisfied, so the dealer could not claim protection from the seizure.

Conclusion: The seizure was upheld and the dealer was held not entitled to relief under section 97(bb); the application failed.

---