Three Vends, One Truck, Six Hundred Cases
During a September review, the District Excise Officer compares three retail vends owned by the same licensee. Each vend's register shows opening stock, receipts and closing stock in cases of 12 bottles. Vend A: opening 1,200, receipts 4,800, closing 600, recorded sales 5,200. Vend B: opening 800, receipts 5,200, closing 1,000, recorded sales 4,800. Vend C: opening 1,000, receipts 4,000, closing 200, recorded sales 4,600. The permit register shows that on 3 September a single truck, PB-11-Z-9090, delivered to all three vends, although its capacity is 300 cases and each permit was for 400 cases. The licensee explains the differences as 'breakage and leakage'. Last September the three vends sold 14,000 cases. The district's annual growth target is 8%. Excise duty is ₹1,200 per case; the average ex-vend price is ₹1,800 per case and VAT is 13%. The officer must decide whether to treat the matter as a record-keeping irregularity or as a revenue leak, and whether the district actually missed its growth target.
1. Reconstruct the expected sales and shortage for each vend. What pattern emerges, and what does it suggest about the 'breakage' explanation and the transport permits?
Read the worked answer
Vend A: 1,200 + 4,800 - 600 = 5,400 expected; recorded 5,200; shortage 200 cases. Vend B: 800 + 5,200 - 1,000 = 5,000 expected; recorded 4,800; shortage 200 cases. Vend C: 1,000 + 4,000 - 200 = 4,800 expected; recorded 4,600; shortage 200 cases. Total shortage = 600 cases. The identical 200-case shortage in each vend is not a random breakage pattern; it points to a common control because the three vends share the same licensee and the same September transport arrangement. The 'breakage and leakage' explanation is further weakened by the truck capacity: three permits of 400 cases total 1,200 cases, but truck PB-11-Z-9090 can carry only 300 cases. One trip cannot carry 1,200 cases; at least four trips are needed. If the permit register shows only one trip, the permits were reused, fictitious, or the goods moved without proper permits.
2. Compute the excise duty and VAT loss, and determine whether the 8% growth target was met if the shortages are treated as unrecorded sales.
Read the worked answer
Excise duty loss: 600 x ₹1,200 = ₹7,20,000. VAT loss: 600 x ₹1,800 x 13% = ₹1,40,400. Total revenue loss = ₹8,60,400. Recorded sales = 5,200 + 4,800 + 4,600 = 14,600 cases. Recorded growth over 14,000 = 600/14,000 = 4.29%, below 8%. Target = 14,000 x 1.08 = 15,120 cases. If the 600 missing cases are treated as unrecorded sales, actual sales = 15,200 cases, which is 80 cases above target (8.57% growth). So the district may have met the target on a real basis; the apparent shortfall is an artefact of leakage. The correct conclusion is not 'target missed' but 'recorded figure unreliable; recover the duty and reassess'.
3. Design a verification plan that tests the transport-permit hypothesis and protects the case if challenged.
Read the worked answer
Before framing charges: seize and compare the three permit counterfoils, depot dispatch slips and the vehicle trip sheet; check toll or Fastag, GPS and weighbridge records for PB-11-Z-9090; verify the truck's capacity and the number of trips; simultaneously verify stock at all three vends to prevent stock shifting; match case or bottle serial numbers and caps; record statements of the driver, licensee and salesmen; check CCTV at the depot and vends; issue show-cause notices and compute duty and VAT; consider prosecution for evasion and permit misuse. The arithmetic alone is not enough; the case must show how 600 cases moved and who controlled the movement. Also check whether the permits were genuine but the goods were transhipped in smaller vehicles, which would change the charge from fictitious permits to unauthorized transhipment.