Management Notes

Reference Notes for Management

Which of the following would prevent double payment of the same voucher?

Which of the following would prevent double payment of the same voucher?

 Options:

a) The person signing the cheque should cancel the supporting documents
b) Cheques should be signed by at best two persons
c) The data of payment of vouchers of similar nature should be the same or close to each other
d) All of the above

The Correct Answer Is:

a) The person signing the cheque should cancel the supporting documents

Correct Answer Explanation: a) The person signing the cheque should cancel the supporting documents

The correct answer is (a) The person signing the cheque should cancel the supporting documents. This method is a crucial step in preventing the double payment of the same voucher.

When a cheque is issued for a voucher, it is essential to cancel the supporting documents to ensure that the transaction is properly recorded and that the payment is not duplicated.

When the person signing the cheque cancels the supporting documents, it serves as a clear indication that the payment has been processed, and the associated voucher should not be paid again. This practice helps in maintaining accurate financial records and prevents the unnecessary disbursement of funds.

Now, let’s explore why the other options are not as effective in preventing double payment:

(b) Cheques should be signed by at best two persons:

Having multiple signatories on a cheque is a good practice for enhancing control and authorization in financial transactions. However, it primarily addresses the issue of internal control and oversight rather than directly preventing double payment.

Even with two signatures, there is still a possibility of oversight or miscommunication that could lead to duplicate payments. Additionally, the number of signatories doesn’t inherently link to the cancellation of supporting documents or provide a clear mechanism for marking a payment as completed.

For example, if two persons sign a cheque, it ensures that at least two individuals have authorized the payment, but it doesn’t inherently communicate that the payment has been processed or that the associated voucher should not be paid again.

It may prevent unauthorized transactions but does not specifically target the prevention of unintentional double payments.

(c) The data of payment of vouchers of similar nature should be the same or close to each other:

While maintaining consistency in payment data is crucial for accurate financial records, relying solely on the similarity of payment data has limitations. Payments for vouchers of similar nature being close or identical may be a good practice, but it doesn’t provide a concrete mechanism to prevent double payments.

This approach assumes that human error or system glitches might lead to payments being entered incorrectly, and by comparing the data, one can identify potential duplicates. However, it lacks a direct and proactive control measure.

It may help in identifying discrepancies after the fact, but it doesn’t prevent the initial occurrence of double payments.

(d) All of the above:

Option (d) suggests that a combination of the measures mentioned in options (a), (b), and (c) would collectively prevent double payment. While each of these measures has its merits in financial controls, selecting “All of the above” might be considered as a comprehensive approach to minimize the risk of double payment.

In contrast, cancelling supporting documents directly addresses the issue at the source by marking the voucher as paid and reducing the risk of it being inadvertently processed again. It serves as a clear and immediate indicator that the payment has been made, minimizing the chances of unintentional duplication.

In conclusion, while options (b) and (c) contribute to overall financial control, they are not as directly targeted at preventing double payments as the specific action of cancelling supporting documents (option a).

Related Posts

Leave a Comment