Top Stories Gas Cylinder Distributor Not Received Income Tax Notice Due to Change of Email ID: Madras HC Waives 15% of Disputed Tax Amount for Fresh Consideration [Read Order] The Madras High Court has waived the condition of paying 15% of the disputed tax amount imposed on a gas cylinder distributor, who failed to receive an income tax notice due to a change in her email ID, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration By Franklin Joshva – On May 22, 2025 11:54 am – 2 mins read The Madras High Court has partly allowed a writ appeal filed by a gas cylinder and stove distributor, setting aside the condition imposed by a Single Judge to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount. Dhanapal Eswari, (appellant), engaged in the business of distributing gas cylinders and stoves, failed to file her Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2018-19 due to personal issues and unavoidable circumstances. The Income Tax Officer issued a show cause notice, to which the appellant responded on 30.03.2022, enclosing a CBDT e-challan for e-tax payment and a statement of income. The appellant also requested a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to file her return. Read More: Different Floors of Single Building cannot be Counted as Separate “Residential Houses” u/s 54F of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC [Read Order] However, the Assessment Unit passed an order on 07.04.2022 and issued a notice under Section 148, which the appellant claimed she did not receive due to a change in her email ID. Got a GST ITC Notice? Read This Before You Reply – Click Here The appellant stated she only became aware of the notice upon receiving an intimation letter dated 06.02.2023 from the Income Tax Department.

The appellant contended that the change in her email ID was duly communicated to the department. The Single Judge, in WP.No.10107/2024 quashed the impugned order but imposed a condition that the appellant pay 15% of the disputed tax amount within three weeks for the matter to be reconsidered. The appellant’s counsel argued that the condition to pay 15% of the disputed tax was arbitrary, given the admitted facts and the nature of her business, which involves high turnover but low margins. Read More: CESTAT Confirms Duty on Sprout Sale Proceeds Retained by Job Worker in Malt Manufacturing [Read Order] A division bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice C. Saravanan observed that the Single Judge’s decision to quash the order and remit the matter was appropriate. However, the court found the condition of paying 15% of the disputed tax amount to be improper, as the liability was not assessed based on admitted facts and could cause serious prejudice to the appellant. Got a GST ITC Notice? Read This Before You Reply – Click Here

The court partly allowed the writ appeal, removing the 15% tax payment condition and quashing the impugned order. The Court remitted the matter to the Assessment Unit for fresh consideration on merits. The court directed the department to pass a final order within four weeks from the receipt of the court’s order, after hearing the parties and adhering to principles of natural justice. The writ appeal was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.