notice issued for assessment which is produced as Annexure-1 series was not signed by the State Tax Authority. The petitioner does not dispute the receipt of notice. Before assessment was completed, an order was passed quantifying the amount of tax, interest and penalty, as is seen from Annexure-2, which was also received by the petitioner, against which an appeal was filed before the Respondent No. 2. Before the Assessment Officer or before the Appellate Authority the respondents have not raised this contention with regard to the absence of the signature. Annexure-3 is an order passed by the Appellate Authority for the reason that petitioner had not appeared consequently on 5 occasions when the matter was posted before the Appellate Authority. It is only on the default of the petitioner or his counsel that the appeal stood dismissed. We find no reason to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction providing remedy under Article 226 on the specific allegation raised, which did not, in any manner, prejudice the petitioner or his opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority. The attempt now is to seek a stay of proceedings based on orders passed by this Court allowing stay of recovery on payment of 20% of the balance taxes, till the Appellate Tribunal under the Goods and Services Tax Act is constituted. We are not
