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 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 of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Laws, and that the petitioner ought to have availed the appellate mechanism instead of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the show cause notice dated 30.05.2024, the reminder dated 06.08.2024, and the impugned ex parte order dated 30.10.2025 were duly served upon the petitioner by making them available on the common portal, which is a statutorily recognized mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Laws. It is contended that once a communication is uploaded on the GST portal, the same is deemed to have been served, and the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of such statutory communication. 3.2. It is contended that once a communication is uploaded on the GST portal, the same is deemed to have been served, and the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of such statutory communication. 3.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner does not absolve the petitioner of statutory liabilities arising out of prior periods, nor does it restrict the proper officer from initiating proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Laws for determination of tax, interest, and penalty pertaining to the relevant financial year. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated strictly in accordance with law and within the prescribed period of limitation. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice, and the petitioner having failed to respond within the stipulated time, the proper officer was justified in proceeding to adjudicate the matter and pass the impugned order on the basis of the material available on record. 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the demand created under the impugned order is based on findings recorded during inspection and proceedings under Section 67 of the GST Laws, as well as discrepancies noticed in the returns and records of the petitioner, and that the adjudication has been carried out in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner. 3.5. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy as provided under the GST Laws. 4. This Court observes that , in light of the peculiar factual matrix of the present case and the principal thrust of the learned counsel for the respondents on the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy , the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Laws, which provides for an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed under Section 74 of the said Act. This Court further observes that the appellate authority is duly empowered to examine both questions of fact and law, including the petitioner’s grievance regarding service of notice, compliance with Section 169, and the alleged denial of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Laws. 5. This Court further observes that the appellate authority is duly empowered to examine both questions of fact and law, including the petitioner’s grievance regarding service of notice, compliance with Section 169, and the alleged denial of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Laws. 5. This Court further observes that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and ordinarily ought not to be invoked where an effective and efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or a patent breach of the principles of natural justice are clearly established. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the issues raised by the petitioner can be appropriately and effectively adjudicated by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Laws. 6. This Court, therefore, observes that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with law. 7. Consequently, the present writ petitions stand dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy. 8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.