A writ petition is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy is available, particularly concerning the principles of natural justice and appropriate communication.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The instant batch of writ petitions, identical in nature on account of similar facts and circumstances and the reliefs claimed therein, are being decided together by this common judgment. Since the controversy involved in the present petitions is common and arises out of the same factual matrix and legal issues, the same are hereby connected and heard analogously for the purpose of a consolidated and efficacious adjudication. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20840/2025 has been treated as the lead case. The said petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash and set aside the impugned ex-parte order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure -9) Passed by the Respondent No. 3 on the basis of Show Cause Notice (Annexure- 6) not communicated to the petitioner but merely uploaded on the GST portal;

(ii) To direct the Respondent No. 3 to re-adjudicate the show cause notice (Annexure – 6) not communicated to the petitioner to submit reply to the show cause notice and to hear the petitioner in person.

(iii) To pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to ensure the ends of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned ex parte order dated 30.10.2025, along with the summary order in Form GST DRC-07, has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory statutory requirements under Sections 169 and 75(4) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “GST Laws”). It is contended that the show cause notice dated 30.05.2024 and the subsequent reminder dated 06.08.2024 were never effectively communicated to the petitioner through any of the prescribed modes of service and were merely uploaded on the GST portal under the incorrect head “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Notices and Orders,” despite the petitioner’s GST registration having already been cancelled with effect from 30.04.2023. Learned counsel submits that, in such circumstances, the petitioner had no occasion or obligation to regularly access the GST portal and was, consequently, deprived of any real opportunity to submit a reply or to be heard in person before the adverse order came to be passed.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 3, even after receiving no response to the show cause notice, failed to explore alternative statutory modes of service as mandated under Section 169 of the GST Laws, thereby rendering the entire adjudicatory exercise mechanical and illusory. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tvl. A.T. Sabuthomas Contractor v. State Tax Officer, Nilgiris (2025) 34 Centax 329 and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Shri Mahadev Enterprises v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Tax No. 557/2025), to contend that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded on the portal, the authority is duty-bound to adopt other effective modes of service, preferably by registered post, and that proceedings initiated or concluded without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing are vitiated. It is further submitted that the demand of tax, interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 5,45,51,196/- has been raised without granting a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Laws, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the availability