13/08/2026
PANCHAYAT AUDIT RAISES RED FLAGS OVER BUDGETS, SPENDING AND PROCEDURAL LAPSES
# # *₹3.46 crore in grants remained unspent; ₹80 lakh labour cess not remitted; garbage collection payments made without contracts; auditor flags unrealistic budgeting and weak financial controls*
*NAVELIM, SALCETE:* A government audit of the accounts of the Village Panchayat of Navelim for *2024-25* has raised a series of serious questions over financial planning, utilisation of public funds, procurement procedures, revenue collection and maintenance of statutory records.
The audit, conducted by the Directorate of Accounts, has particularly highlighted a striking mismatch between the Panchayat's budget projections and its actual performance, along with several instances where payments and works were allegedly undertaken without following prescribed procedures.
The audit report also notes that *previous audit observations have remained unattended*, with the Directorate of Accounts specifically stating that compliance to earlier observations had been neglected.
# # # *₹3.46 CRORE IN GRANTS REMAINED UNUSED*
One of the most significant financial observations concerns unspent grants.
According to the audit, the Panchayat had *₹3,46,07,737 in grants remaining unspent* from previous years. The auditors pointed out that grants are required to be utilised within the prescribed period and, where they cannot be utilised, are liable to be surrendered to the sanctioning authority.
The audit also observed that the Panchayat had *not submitted the Utilisation Certificate for the XIV Finance Commission grants*, and sought an explanation for the failure.
The scale of the unspent amount raises questions over whether funds sanctioned for development and public services are actually reaching their intended purpose.
# # # *BUDGET FIGURES VERSUS REALITY*
The audit has delivered one of its sharpest criticisms on the Panchayat's budgeting.
For 2024-25, the Panchayat had estimated *income of ₹7.44 crore, but the actual receipts were only around *₹3.33 crore** — a shortfall of approximately *₹4.11 crore*.
Similarly, expenditure had been budgeted at approximately *₹6.03 crore, while actual expenditure stood at only around *₹2.01 crore*, leaving a gap of approximately *₹4.02 crore**.
The auditor concluded that these substantial variations indicated that the Panchayat had *failed to prepare a realistic budget*.
In other words, the problem identified by the audit is not merely that the Panchayat spent less than anticipated; it is that the original financial projections themselves appear to have been substantially disconnected from actual revenue and expenditure patterns.
# # # *₹80 LAKH LABOUR CESS NOT REMITTED*
Another major finding concerns labour welfare cess.
The audit states that approximately *₹80,05,965* was collected as labour cess during the period under review but was *not remitted to the Goa Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board*.
The auditors have called for the amount to be promptly remitted in accordance with the statutory provisions and sought details of action taken.
This is particularly significant because the Panchayat was collecting the money specifically for a statutory welfare purpose. Holding such funds without transferring them to the designated authority creates a serious compliance issue.
# # # *GST TDS DEDUCTED BUT NOT DEPOSITED*
The audit has also flagged the handling of GST Tax Deducted at Source.
According to the report, the Panchayat deducted GST TDS from payments made to contractors but *did not deposit the deducted amount with the government and did not file the required GSTR-7 returns*.
The auditor further observed discrepancies between the CGST and SGST amounts shown in the records and called for verification.
The report also notes that the Panchayat collected *₹10,813 in royalty from a contractor's bill*, but the amount had not been deposited with the Mines Department and was instead lying in the Panchayat fund.
# # # *GARBAGE COLLECTION: PAYMENTS WITHOUT CONTRACTS AND APPROVALS*
The audit has raised serious procedural questions over expenditure on door-to-door garbage collection.
The Panchayat reportedly spent approximately *₹17.17 lakh on garbage collection and ₹4.68 lakh on transportation* during 2024-25.
However, the auditor observed that the garbage collection activity was undertaken *without a contract*, without financial approval and without following the prescribed codal formalities.
Payments were reportedly made to individuals for diesel and door-to-door collection.
The auditor specifically questioned why payments were released without proper bills and why financial and administrative approvals had not been obtained.
Since the expenditure exceeded the prescribed threshold, the audit also pointed towards the need to follow tender procedures and engage approved labour contractors.
# # # *MORE PAYMENTS FLAGGED*
The report identifies additional expenditure where prescribed procedures were allegedly not followed.
A payment of *₹54,000 for garbage bags* was made to Raymond D'Silva, but the audit states that quotations were not invited.
Another *₹78,400* was paid to Caetanho Gomes towards door-to-door garbage collection. The auditor observed that BDO approval had not been obtained, no contract agreement had been executed and codal formalities had not been followed.
These observations raise questions not necessarily about whether the services were provided, but about *how public money was authorised, procured and documented*.
# # # *₹41.29 LAKH WALKING TRACK PROJECT UNDER AUDIT LENS*
A particularly important observation relates to a project to beautify/develop and construct a walking track and related works in front of *Rosary High School at Ratwaddo, Navelim*, under the 60 Years Goa Liberation Fund.
The project was valued at approximately *₹41.29 lakh*.
The auditor questioned whether the Panchayat's decision complied with the operational guidelines governing the 60 Years Goa Liberation Fund.
More significantly, the report states that a *footpath was constructed along the boundaries of the school on private property, and that the Panchayat had **not entered into an agreement with Rosary High School* specifying that the pathway would be used by the public.
The audit described the expenditure as potentially wasteful and questioned the failure to maintain the required CPWD contract book.
# # # *WORK COMPLETED LATE — FINE NOT RECOVERED*
The audit also examined repair work on an existing drain near the residence of Filomena Coutinho at Sinquetim, estimated at *₹5.98 lakh*.
Although the work was ordered with a specified completion period, the auditor noted that the work was certified as completed after the original period and that *the required fine for the time extension had not been recovered from the contractor*.
The report further observed that the relevant CPWD contract book had not been maintained.
# # # *PROPERTY REGISTER NOT MAINTAINED*
Basic institutional record-keeping has also come under criticism.
The audit found that the Panchayat's *property register was not maintained*.
For an institution responsible for public assets, the absence of an updated property register can make it difficult to establish a clear record of Panchayat-owned properties, assets and liabilities.
# # # *₹1.51 LAKH IN SECURITY DEPOSITS AND EMD*
The audit also highlighted outstanding security deposits of *₹88,128* and Earnest Money Deposits of *₹63,631*.
The auditors noted that the relevant registers needed to be updated to provide a clear picture of Panchayat liabilities and pointed out that security deposits lying for more than three years could be treated as lapsed deposits, subject to the prescribed procedure.
# # # *NO PROVISION FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS*
The audit further found that the Panchayat had *not maintained the required provision for pensionary benefits*.
The report refers to the requirement for Panchayats to reserve *2.5% of income* towards reserve funds for contributory provident fund and pensionary benefits for staff.
# # # *TAX COLLECTION DESCRIBED AS UNSATISFACTORY*
Revenue mobilisation has also emerged as a weak area.
The audit states that *tax collection was not satisfactory*, notices were not being issued to defaulters and outstanding taxes were not being effectively pursued.
The auditors also observed that the revenue collection registers, including Forms 7 and 8, were incomplete or not properly maintained.
The audit records substantial outstanding balances across various taxes and calls for stronger recovery action.
# # # *82 NOTICES — NONE SETTLED*
The report further notes that *82 notices had been issued and none had been settled*, with the Panchayat failing to initiate the required action for recovery.
This raises a broader question over the Panchayat's ability to convert assessed revenue into actual collections.
# # # *MARKET FEES: REVENUE POTENTIAL LOST*
The Panchayat paid a market fee collector *₹1.80 lakh* during 2024-25, while market fee collections amounted to approximately *₹3.66 lakh*.
The auditor suggested that the Panchayat consider conducting a *market auction* to maximise revenue rather than relying on the existing arrangement.
# # # *BANK RECONCILIATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROLS*
The Panchayat ended the financial year with a closing balance of approximately *₹6.90 crore*.
While the auditor described its overall financial position as good, the report criticised the absence of proper monthly reconciliation of bank accounts.
The audit also observed that the required *monthly surprise checks of cash book and bank balances had not been carried out*, and surprise-check certificates had not been recorded.
The auditors suggested that surplus funds could be placed in fixed deposits to generate additional interest revenue.
# # # *ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOT PREPARED*
The audit states that the Panchayat had *not prepared and forwarded its development plan during 2024-25*, despite the requirement under the Goa Panchayat Raj framework.
This raises questions over the Panchayat's planning mechanism and whether development expenditure is being driven by a structured annual plan.
# # # *DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTIONS NOT CARRIED OUT*
The audit also records a failure to conduct the required departmental inspections during 2024-25.
The report states that the authorities responsible for inspections had failed to carry them out as required.
# # # *ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT ALSO MISSING*
The audit further states that the Panchayat had *not prepared its administrative report* for the preceding financial year as required under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act.
# # # *A PATTERN RATHER THAN ISOLATED ERRORS?*
Taken together, the audit findings point to a wider issue of *financial management and institutional compliance* rather than a single accounting discrepancy.
The findings cover:
* unrealistic budget estimates;
* large amounts of unspent grants;
* non-remittance of labour cess;
* non-deposit of GST TDS;
* non-remittance of royalty;
* garbage collection expenditure without proper contracts and approvals;
* procurement without quotations;
* questions over the implementation of a ₹41.29 lakh walking-track project;
* failure to recover contractual penalties;
* incomplete statutory registers;
* weak tax recovery;
* absence of monthly bank reconciliation and surprise checks;
* failure to prepare the annual development plan;
* failure to conduct required inspections; and
* failure to prepare the administrative report.
The audit report therefore presents a picture of a Panchayat with a *substantial financial base but significant weaknesses in planning, compliance, documentation and ex*****on*.
The most important question now is not merely why these lapses occurred, but *what corrective action will be taken, who will be held accountable for procedural failures, and whether the Panchayat will ensure that the same observations do not reappear in the next audit*.
# # # *ACCOUNTABILITY NOW THE KEY TEST*
The Directorate of Accounts has already noted that earlier audit observations were not adequately complied with.
The next stage should therefore be closely watched: whether the Panchayat submits explanations, remits outstanding statutory dues, regularises procurement and works, updates its registers, strengthens revenue recovery and implements the auditor's recommendations.
For Navelim's taxpayers and residents, the audit raises a fundamental issue:
*If public funds are available, are they being planned, authorised, spent and accounted for with the level of financial discipline expected from a public institution?*
The audit findings suggest that this is a question the Navelim Panchayat will now have to answer.
