assessment orders impugned in the appeal before the 5th respondent, was that the petitioner had not filed monthly returns for the months of April and May 2015 and had not remitted the tax dues within the stipulated date. It is therefore that the assessing authority proceeded to estimate the turnover of the petitioner and levy tax accordingly. It is stated by the petitioner and accepted by the appellate authority, that subsequently the petitioner filed returns from the months of April and May 2015 and paid tax together with interest thereon. The appellate authority, however, found that the correctness the returns could be ascertained only on a scrutiny of the same, which procedure would have to be done while hearing the appeals. It is therefore that the petitioner was required to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each in respect of each of the appeals as a condition for the grant of stay of recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment orders impugned in the appeal. On a consideration of Ext.P7 order, I find that, there is no jurisdictional error or nonapplication of mind or a violation of the rules of natural justice that would require me to interfere with Ext.P7 order in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, I dismiss the writ petition in its challenge against
