De-freezing of bank account: revisional rejection set aside for relying on an unrelated appellate remedy and ignoring the merits.

A revisional order rejecting a request to de-freeze a bank account was unsustainable because it refused to examine the merits and instead relied on the supposed availability of GST appellate remedies, even though that was neither the basis of the Magistrate's order nor the prosecution's objection. The Magistrate had treated the de-freezing application as maintainable and rejected it on separate grounds tied to the stage of investigation and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The revisional court's reliance on an unrelated remedy reflected non-application of mind, so the order was set aside and the revision was restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order rejecting the application for de-freezing the bank account on the ground that the petitioner should have approached the GST Appellate Authority was sustainable, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The revisional court declined to examine the merits of the revision and rejected it on a ground that was neither the basis of the Magistrate's order nor the ground of opposition taken by the prosecution. The bank account de-freezing application had been considered maintainable by the Magistrate, who had rejected it on different considerations relating to the stage of investigation and the seriousness of the alleged offences. Rejecting the revision by invoking an unrelated appellate remedy showed non-application of mind to the issue requiring decision.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside. The revision application was restored to the revisional court for fresh in accordance with law.

---