1 a
2 4
3 SALT REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR THE OFFICIAL YEAR 1902a1¢03.
4 self and his household in quantities which admit of an exact
5 calculation of the price payable at the rate of sers to the
6 rupee. It is true that the quantities are usually small; the
7 - calculations are intricate owing to the general use of local
8 weights and uncurrent copper coins; and, as above stated,
9 pricés are not always governed by the tehsil price currents.
10 The Indian peasant, however, is, as a rule, a shrewd pur-
11 chaser; and the competition of rival shopkeepers generally
12 suffices to enable a man buying even a pice worth of salt to
13 ebtain full value for his money. I believe that there is much
14 truth in the statement made in Council by the Honourable
15 Babu Sri Ram that ‘the salt tax is the least oppressive ”
16 {7.¢.,"% is the least felt) of all the taxes levied by Government
17 at any rate in Upper India. The assailants of the tax hardly
18 realise perhaps how cheap salt in India really is, and how
19 small is the difference between Indian and English retail
20 prices. At the timeI am writing, the average retail price of
21 salt in the Punjab according to the price currents is 14 sers
22 9 chattaks the rupee and in the United Provinces it is 12—1;
23 or, in other words, 14% chattaks (1 lb. 14 0z.) and 12 chat-
24 taks (1 lb. 9 oz.), respectively, for 1 anna. In Engiand the
25 average retail price in provincial towns appears to be about 2
26 Ibs. 5 oz. to 3 lbs. forthe penny. 1 believe therefore that,
27 even witha duty of Rs. 2-8‘o a maund, it is only a very
28 small proportion of the Indian people who are deterred by
29 the price of the article from buying as much salt as they
30 want for consumption. The fact that the rate of consump-
31 tion per head in the Central Provinces and Bengal, where salt
32 is comparatively dear, is higher than it is in the Punjab, where
33 salt is cheep, strongly supports this view. At the same time, *
34 to take the case of the Punjab, a poor householder with a
35 wife and 3 children consuming (say) 6 lbs. of salt per head,
36 (the provincial average of 7°48 lbs. includes consumption by
37 cattle), gains 2 annas and 11 pies by a fall in the price from
38 12 sers 44 chattaks to 14 sers 9 chattaks, and though the
39 reduction of taxation may seem small in our eyes, it is for
40 him a not inappreciable amount. In Southern India, where
41 the consumption per head is larger the reduction of taxation
42 will be* greater. Cattle and cattle-owners will also benefit.
43 It may, however, be doubted whether the gain to the individual
44 is sufficient to compensate for the finaucial sacrifice involved
45 in the reduction, of the duty.
46 8. The accounts of the Department for 1901-02 were Adjustment of the ac-
47 compared with those of the Comptroller of India Treasuries. Pen wihiheeer oe
48 The Departmental figures of revcnue were found to be © Comptroller, India
49 less than the treagury credits by Rs. 17,321-10-4. The ="
50 Comptroller of India Treasuries credited the Department with
51 Rs. 3,958-2-0 on account of Baluchistan salt receipts which
52 do not appear in our accounts. The collections of the Great
53 Indian Peninsula Railway for November 1901, amounting to
54 Rs. 7,953-2-0, were erroneously twice credited to the Depart-
55 ment ; and the revenue received at the Jammu treasury in
56 April 1902, amounting to-Rs. 5,414-1-0, was also wrongly
57 credited to the Department in the year 1901-02. A difference
58 remains of Rs, 3-10-8 after these adjustments, which appears
59 to be due to a mistake inthe figures of the Accounts Depart-
60 ment. The Comptroller’s monthly accounts agree with those
61 of the Department, but the total of his annual account ts less
62 “by Rs. 3-10-8 than the figures compiled from our returns,
63 and also less than his monthly accounts. Under the head of
64 charges the Comptroller’s annual account is less by Rs, 13-8-1
65 than the expenditure recorded by the Department, owing, as he
66 has explained, to fractions of rupees having been discarded by
67 him, His monthly accounts and those of the Department agrce.
68 (5)