10
Y/
* See ales eve in
(20)
O even if we add un the commission they
m
nightsvil
receive sales - which I Suppose shd A. regarded as
an item of popet to them-
the total of poss profit Xeominiazion for all depots life the was only $7712.36 (₤482)
in 1948-49
and $9981-8) (ftdy) in 1949-57.
grant and £9,250 loan, i.e. there is only £125 grant and £125 loan left for recurrent expenditure during the remaining period of the Scheme. There is ample grant still in hand (£7,360) for capital expenditure.
No.22. The local firm of Accountants raised in their Audit Reports various questions about the status of the Vegetable Marketing Organisation and the liability of the Organisation rates, taxes and duties of various kinds. These questions do not affect the Scheme directly but they do so indirectly in the manner indicated in paragraph 4 of the D.G.C.A's Report at (18) and the Governor touches upon this aspect in No.22. (3) on the 1948 file had said that receipts for services rendered by village depots to the Organisation and Fertiliser projects should be credited to the Vegetable Villaje Depots Scheme (D.994); but subsequently, village depots were placed under the management of the Vegetable Marketing Organisation and a grant for the depots was made on the understanding that receipts should be available for the work of the Vegetable Marketing Organisation and not appropriated to the Colony revenues (paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Scheme at (8) on 48, and paragraph 2 of (12) on 48). Incidentally, I do not understand the statements in both paragraph 1 of (12) on 48 and at X of (22) on this file, to the effect that the profits from the operation of the depots cannot be separated from the profits of the Organisation; this seems to be refuted by the accounts prepared by the local firm of Accountants which do in fact set out the trading transactions and profits for each depot, and I should have thought that the profit could without any difficulty have been offset against the recurrent expenditure in each case, as was originally intended in (3) on /-48. However, as the decision was not to do this, we need not pursue that point although if we had stuck to the original intention the questions which have now cropped up as at Y/- above would never have arisen so far as the Scheme is concerned.
The matter which now requires a decision is the Governor's request in the penultimate paragraph of No.22. The question of whether the Vegetable Marketing Organisation should be liable to taxes and duties is outside Accounts Department's scope. So far as the Scheme is concerned however, if it is decided that the Organisation is not to be so liable the repercussions on the Scheme disappear. But if the Organisation's liability to taxation etc., is to continue then I am inclined to agree with the Governor that since the trading profits of the depots are so small, and since the proportion of them which disappears in the shape of/rates; taxes, petrol duties etc., payable by the Vegetable Marketing Organisation is naturally even smaller, the amount at stake seems insufficient to justify any change in the present arrangements. In that event, however, I think it would be well to put the position to the Treasury and to secure their agreement that the payment of taxes, duties etc., by the Organisation out of its profits, which include. revenues from the village depots, does not constitute a contravention of the requirement in paragraph 10 of the Scheme.
My Fitzgerald
It is clearly stated in var
rents
Lichener
(H.I.H. Titchener) 4th July, 1952.
71*
it (12) on the 1948 papers that (.D.W. assistance towards
stated in our Savingsam to Hing King
the Village Agricultural Depot - Scheme). 994
Why
the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.