UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Tasmac shops must issue bill for every bottle of liquor they sell: Madras HC

Q1. In the writ petition that led the Madras High Court to direct Tasmac to maintain bill books and issue a bill for every bottle of liquor sold, the petitioner sought registration of a case against the shop employees under which one of the following laws?

  • A. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, which governs the state-controlled liquor trade
  • B. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deals with offences by public servants
  • C. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which regulates weights, measures and declared prices
  • D. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which penalises unfair trade practices in retail

Q2. The petitioner in the Tasmac overcharging case before the Madras High Court sought registration of an FIR by which one of the following agencies?

  • A. The Enforcement Directorate, the central agency handling money-laundering probes
  • B. The Central Bureau of Investigation, the premier central investigating police agency
  • C. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the state anti-corruption agency
  • D. The Competition Commission of India, the statutory market-regulation authority

Q3. In the order announced in May 2026 shutting down Tasmac retail liquor outlets located close to places of worship, educational institutions and bus stands, how many outlets in all were directed to be closed across Tamil Nadu?

  • A. 276
  • B. 717
  • C. 255
  • D. 4,765

Q4. Consider the following statements regarding the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac): 1. It was created in 1983 to control the wholesale trade in arrack and Indian-made foreign spirits. 2. Its exclusive rights over retail vending flowed from an amendment of the Prohibition Act made in 2003, two decades after it was set up. 3. It is a wholly owned Government of Tamil Nadu company registered under the Companies Act. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. It was created in 1983 to control the wholesale trade in arrack and Indian-made foreign spirits.
  2. Its exclusive rights over retail vending flowed from an amendment of the Prohibition Act made in 2003, two decades after it was set up.
  3. It is a wholly owned Government of Tamil Nadu company registered under the Companies Act.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 2 and 3 only
  • C. 1 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q5. Consider the following pairings of agency and action in the Tasmac irregularities matter: 1. Competition Commission of India — ordered an investigation into Tasmac for prima facie abuse of dominant position by limiting market access to certain beer brands. 2. Enforcement Directorate — carried out searches in March 2025 at distillery corporate offices, employees' premises and Tasmac plants. 3. Supreme Court — stayed the Enforcement Directorate's Tasmac investigation, observing that the agency was crossing all limits. 4. Central Vigilance Commission — registered the first information report against the former minister and others in the Tasmac case. Which of the above is/are NOT correctly matched?

  1. Competition Commission of India — ordered an investigation into Tasmac for prima facie abuse of dominant position by limiting market access to certain beer brands.
  2. Enforcement Directorate — carried out searches in March 2025 at distillery corporate offices, employees' premises and Tasmac plants.
  3. Supreme Court — stayed the Enforcement Directorate's Tasmac investigation, observing that the agency was crossing all limits.
  4. Central Vigilance Commission — registered the first information report against the former minister and others in the Tasmac case.
  • A. 1 and 3
  • B. 2 and 4
  • C. 1, 2 and 4
  • D. 4 only

Q6. The Enforcement Directorate stated that its March 2025 action in the Tasmac matter had uncovered unaccounted cash transactions routed through distillery companies of approximately what value?

  • A. Rs 100 crore
  • B. Rs 1,000 crore
  • C. Rs 5,000 crore
  • D. Rs 10,000 crore

Q7. Offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are triable exclusively by which one of the following?

  • A. A Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Act, who is deemed to be a Court of Session
  • B. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district in which the public servant is posted
  • C. The Central Vigilance Commission sitting as a tribunal of first instance in such matters
  • D. A Lokayukta bench constituted by the State Government for offences by state public servants

Q8. After the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a person who was compelled to give a bribe escapes prosecution for that offence only if he reports the matter to law enforcement authorities within how many days?

  • A. Three days
  • B. Seven days
  • C. Fifteen days
  • D. Thirty days

Q9. In the state anti-corruption machinery of which Tamil Nadu's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption forms a part, the detailed inquiry reports prepared on complaints against public servants are submitted in the first instance to which one of the following?

  • A. The Vigilance Commissioner, who thereafter submits them to the State Government
  • B. The Central Vigilance Commission, which thereafter advises the State Government
  • C. The Special Judge of the concerned district, who orders further investigation
  • D. The State Human Rights Commission, which forwards them to the State Government