CAG raps Gujarat govt for excess market borrowings
Highlighting lack of prudent fiscal management, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has criticised Gujarat Government for raising excess market borrowings than required for financing its deficit.
Ahmedabad: Highlighting lack of prudent fiscal management, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has criticised Gujarat Government for raising excess market borrowings than required for financing its deficit.
The CAG, in its report for the year ended March 31, 2012, tabled in the state Assembly, also revealed that the state government had in its budget allocations, earmarked more funds for various departments and projects, which, however, it could not spend due to several reasons.
The report points out that government`s expenditure for 2011-12 stood at Rs 80,222.83 crore against the approval of Rs 85,743.21 crore, resulting in non-utilisation of funds worth Rs 5,520.38 crore.
The CAG report stated that during 2011-12, the government raised excess market loans than required for financing its deficit, showing non-application of prudent fiscal management.
"As a result, the cash balance of the state as on March 31, 2012 stood at Rs 18,632 crore, which was 24 per cent higher than that of previous year. The cost of holding surplus cash balances is high. Since maintaining huge idle cash balance is not prudent cash management, appropriate steps should be taken for spending on capital projects for creation of assets," it said in the report.
It has also highlighted the steady increase of the outstanding fiscal liabilities.
"The outstanding fiscal liabilities have shown steady increase over the years, from Rs 96,452 crore at the end of 2007-08 to Rs 1,50,785 crore at the end of 2011-12," it said.
The report has also taken a critical view of government`s financial accountability and budget management for non-spending and non-utilisation of allocated funds.
Pointing out the savings in grant amount of Rs 501.70 crore pertaining to non-residential buildings of roads and buildings department, the report says, "it was on account of higher provision for new works, time consuming tender procedures, delay in preparation of estimates and non allotment of land."