https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168257 A statutory presumption that storage of 100 maunds or more of foodgrains was for sale under clause 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 did not by itself establish that a person was carrying on business as a dealer under clause 3(1). The definition of dealer required continuity of transactions and proof of business, not a single casual act of storage. The presumption under clause 3(2) was limited to the purpose of storage and did not dispense with independent proof of the business element. In the absence of such additional evidence, liability under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:20:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168257 A statutory presumption that storage of 100 maunds or more of foodgrains was for sale under clause 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 did not by itself establish that a person was carrying on business as a dealer under clause 3(1). The definition of dealer required continuity of transactions and proof of business, not a single casual act of storage. The presumption under clause 3(2) was limited to the purpose of storage and did not dispense with independent proof of the business element. In the absence of such additional evidence, liability under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168257