ESI/EPF compliance depends on welfare statute due dates, with limited remand allowed for unverified salary-disbursement facts

Employee's ESI/EPF contribution must be deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare statute, and not merely by reference to the return-filing due date under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; on that principle, the disallowance was sustained. The taxpayer's alternative plea that compliance should be tested by the actual date of monthly salary disbursement had not been examined by the lower authorities, so the matter was remitted for limited factual verification. The primary relief was therefore refused, but a narrow remand was allowed on the unverified factual issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of employee's ESI/EPF contribution could be sustained when the contribution was not deposited within the due date under the relevant welfare statute as compared with the due date for filing the return. (ii) Whether the assessee's alternative plea based on the actual date of monthly salary disbursement required fresh factual verification.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of employee's ESI/EPF contribution could be sustained when the contribution was not deposited within the due date under the relevant welfare statute as compared with the due date for filing the return.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by the binding principle that employee contributions to ESI/EPF must be deposited within the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statute, and not merely by reference to the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On that basis, the primary challenge to the disallowance was not accepted.

Conclusion: Decided against the assessee on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's alternative plea based on the actual date of monthly salary disbursement required fresh factual verification.

Analysis: The factual claim regarding compliance by reference to the actual date of salary disbursement had not been examined by the lower authorities. Limited restoration was therefore directed for fresh verification, with the assessee to establish the factual foundation in the consequential proceedings.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee to the limited extent of remand for verification.

Final Conclusion: The primary disallowance was upheld in principle, but the matter was sent back for limited factual verification, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Employee welfare contributions must satisfy the due date under the relevant welfare statute, while an unexamined factual plea bearing on compliance may warrant limited remand for verification.

---