Issues: Whether the six-month limitation for claiming refund under the retrospective service-tax exemption commences from the date of presidential assent to the Finance Act, 2017 or from the date of the service-provider certificate required to support the refund application.

Analysis: Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 retrospectively exempted the relevant one-time upfront amount for long-term industrial-plot leases and provided for refund of tax already collected, with a six-month period for filing the claim. The refund application had to be accompanied by SIPCOT's certificate confirming payment of service tax. Since that certificate was issued on 19.12.2017, the limitation could commence only upon its issuance; the application filed on 26.02.2018 was consequently within six months. The Tribunal's computation from the date of presidential assent disregarded the mandatory supporting certificate.

Conclusion: The refund claim was within limitation, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether refund amounts withheld for want of evidence that service tax deducted by the Rajasthan Housing Board was deposited with the Revenue were admissible; (ii) Whether interest on the refunded service tax was payable at 12% from the dates of tax payment, or only at the statutory rate after the prescribed period from the refund applications.

Issue (i): Whether refund amounts withheld for want of evidence that service tax deducted by the Rajasthan Housing Board was deposited with the Revenue were admissible.

Analysis: A refund claimant must furnish documentary evidence establishing payment of the duty or tax claimed as refund. The narration in a show-cause notice of the claimant's assertion that tax had been deducted by the awarder does not establish actual deduction, deposit in the Government account, or absence of a separate refund to the awarder. No challans, certificates, or equivalent primary evidence established the relevant payments.

Conclusion: The withheld refund amounts were correctly denied for lack of documentary proof of duty payment, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the refunded service tax was payable at 12% from the dates of tax payment, or only at the statutory rate after the prescribed period from the refund applications.

Analysis: Refund claims for tax voluntarily paid under self-assessment fall within the statutory refund mechanism. Such payments cannot be treated as revenue deposits merely because they were subsequently asserted to have been made under a mistake of law. Interest on delayed refund accrues only after expiry of three months from receipt of the refund application, and the Tribunal cannot award equitable or compensatory interest beyond the statutory framework. The record showed that the refunds were ultimately made pursuant to the appellate orders, beyond the statutory three-month period.

Conclusion: The appellants are entitled to interest at 6% per annum from expiry of three months after their respective refund applications until payment of the sanctioned refunds, in favour of the assessee; interest at 12% from the dates of tax payment is denied.

Final Conclusion: The statutory refund regime governs both the evidentiary entitlement to refund and interest for delay; only proven refund claims qualify, and delayed payment of sanctioned refunds attracts interest at the notified statutory rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax voluntarily paid under self-assessment and claimed back as refund remains governed by the statutory refund provisions, and interest is payable only at the notified rate from expiry of three months after receipt of a valid refund application.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where the imported aluminium scrap was not received in the factory and credit was availed on invalid, exhausted or fictitious documents; (ii) Whether the demand of duty for clandestine removal, invocation of the extended limitation period and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where the imported aluminium scrap was not received in the factory and credit was availed on invalid, exhausted or fictitious documents.

Analysis: Rule 3(1) requires receipt of inputs in the factory for availment of credit. Documentary endorsements showed diversion of imported scrap away from the factory; the material was corroborated by statements of the customs house agents and cargo personnel. The appellant did not produce supporting Cenvat records or invoices, while its statements admitted non-receipt of scrap and departmental investigation established that the stated suppliers had made no supplies.

Conclusion: The Cenvat credit was wrongly availed and its reversal was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty for clandestine removal, invocation of the extended limitation period and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: Parallel invoices, transport and freight records, booking registers, delivery documents and statements established clearances of final products without invoices and without payment of duty. The evidence demonstrated fraudulent conduct causing duty evasion, rather than a procedural lapse, and supported invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalties.

Conclusion: The duty demand for clandestine removal, extended limitation and penalties were sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed reversal of inadmissible credit, excise-duty demand, extended limitation and penalties remain enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit is unavailable where inputs are not actually received in the registered factory, and corroborated documentary and testimonial evidence of undisclosed clearances establishes clandestine removal and justifies the extended limitation period where fraud is shown.

Issues: (i) Whether the charge of clandestine removal was established; (ii) Whether individual penalties were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the charge of clandestine removal was established.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority rejected the requested cross-examination despite treating the reply as interim, but did not communicate that rejection or grant a further opportunity to file a final reply on merits. The demand was consequently determined solely on the show-cause allegations. Seeking cross-examination was a permissible means of disputing the alleged admissions, notwithstanding that the statements had not been formally retracted. The proceedings therefore breached audi alteram partem and denied a reasonable opportunity to defend.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether individual penalties were justified.

Analysis: The penalised individuals were likewise not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their defence. The procedural infirmity that invalidated the demand equally affected the penalties.

Conclusion: The individual penalties could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties were set aside because the adjudication was conducted in breach of natural justice, and a remand was considered purposeless given the age of the alleged activity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where liability is founded on statements and the noticees seek cross-examination, rejection of that request without communicating the decision and affording a further effective opportunity to answer the case violates audi alteram partem and vitiates the adjudication.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation for demanding central excise duty could validly be invoked.

Analysis: The Department had been informed through prior correspondence of the assessee's intended procurement and packing/labelling activities in respect of crankshafts. It could not, after three years, claim ignorance of those material facts. Further, despite the direction to issue a proper recovery notice, the show-cause notice was issued beyond one year, and the lower orders did not address these facts. The extended period was therefore invoked without justification.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was legally unsustainable; consequently, the duty demand and consequential penalty could not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 8A(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, requiring a degree in Agricultural Science and prescribed experience for registration as a valuer of agricultural land, is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether rejection of the petitioner's application for registration as an agricultural-land valuer for want of the prescribed qualification was valid.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 8A(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, requiring a degree in Agricultural Science and prescribed experience for registration as a valuer of agricultural land, is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 authorises distinct qualifications for valuers of different asset classes. Rule 8A prescribes qualifications corresponding to the specialised nature of each asset. Agricultural-land valuation entails assessment of soil quality and fertility, irrigation, cultivation, crops, productivity, land classification, access, comparable sales and other agricultural characteristics reflected in the prescribed valuation form. A degree in Agricultural Science with farm-valuation experience bears a rational nexus to this object. The alternative eligibility extended to specified former Government officers rests on their substantial practical experience in land administration and valuation, constituting a valid classification. A statutory qualification is not invalid merely because another professional qualification may also enable a person to undertake valuation work.

Conclusion: Rule 8A(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the petitioner's application for registration as an agricultural-land valuer for want of the prescribed qualification was valid.

Analysis: The petitioner held a Civil Engineering qualification and was registered for valuation of non-agricultural immovable properties, but did not possess the Agricultural Science degree and farm-valuation experience required by Rule 8A(3). Registration for a different asset category could not substitute compliance with the distinct statutory qualifications applicable to agricultural lands.

Conclusion: Rejection of the application for registration as a valuer of agricultural land was valid. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The prescribed specialised qualification regime for agricultural-land valuers remains enforceable, and civil-engineering credentials do not confer eligibility for that separate registration category.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory rule prescribing specialised qualifications for valuation of a distinct class of assets is valid where the qualification has a rational nexus with the expertise required, and an experience-based alternative for specified public officers constitutes a reasonable classification.

Issues: (i) Whether the taxability of the write-back of employee-benefit provisions must be determined after giving final effect to the appellate proceedings for the year in which the corresponding provision was claimed; (ii) Whether interest under section 234D for Assessment Year 2009-10 requires recomputation following modification of the assessment pursuant to appellate orders; (iii) Whether refunds adjusted against outstanding demand must first be appropriated towards interest refundable and thereafter towards principal tax while computing interest under section 244A; (iv) Whether interest under section 234D for Assessment Year 2011-12 could be levied beyond one month.

Issue (i): Whether the taxability of the write-back of employee-benefit provisions must be determined after giving final effect to the appellate proceedings for the year in which the corresponding provision was claimed.

Analysis: A write-back is taxable where the corresponding expenditure was allowed as a deduction in the earlier year; conversely, taxing it where the deduction was not allowed would result in double taxation. Since the final consequential effect of the appellate orders for Assessment Year 2008-09 remained to be worked out, the write-back could not be independently determined.

Conclusion: The taxability of the write-back was restored for determination after giving final effect to the appellate orders for Assessment Year 2008-09.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 234D for Assessment Year 2009-10 requires recomputation following modification of the assessment pursuant to appellate orders.

Analysis: Levy of interest under section 234D is consequential upon the final regular-assessment position. As the assessment had been modified pursuant to appellate directions, the existence and quantum of any excess demand required verification against the final order giving effect to those directions.

Conclusion: The levy of interest under section 234D was restored for fresh verification and recomputation; no interest is chargeable if the final regular assessment results in no excess demand.

Issue (iii): Whether refunds adjusted against outstanding demand must first be appropriated towards interest refundable and thereafter towards principal tax while computing interest under section 244A.

Analysis: The applicable judicial principle requires a refund adjusted against an outstanding demand to be first appropriated towards the interest component payable to the assessee and only thereafter towards the principal tax component. The same principle applied to both assessment years.

Conclusion: The adjustment must first be made against interest refundable and thereafter against principal tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest under section 234D for Assessment Year 2011-12 could be levied beyond one month.

Analysis: The prior coordinate-bench decision in the assessee's own case, on identical facts and chronology, confined the period of charge under section 234D to March 2013. Subsequent rectification and appellate-effect orders did not alter the relevant date of the original regular assessment for this purpose.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234D was restricted to one month, from 01.03.2013 to 31.03.2013, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The write-back and the consequential interest for Assessment Year 2009-10 require determination on the final appellate-effect position, while the assessee receives the prescribed refund-interest adjustment and restricted section 234D charge for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund is adjusted against an outstanding tax demand, appropriation must first be towards interest payable on the refund and thereafter towards the principal tax amount.

Issues: Whether, following a search initiated after 1 April 2021, a pending return for which scrutiny assessment remained within limitation could be assessed under Section 143(3), or could only be dealt with through reassessment under Section 148.

Analysis: The post-2021 framework does not expressly bar scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) merely because a search under Section 132 has taken place. The substitution of Section 132(8) expressly recognises assessment under Section 143(3) in relation to seized material. The deeming fiction in Explanation 2 to Section 148 enables reassessment where a completed assessment or intimation is followed by search, or where the time for regular processing or scrutiny assessment has expired; it does not displace a timely pending original assessment. The notice under Section 143(2) and the assessment order were within the applicable statutory limitation. The assessee had also participated in the assessment proceedings without objection.

Conclusion: A timely pending original assessment after search could validly be completed under Section 143(3); recourse to Section 148 was not mandatory. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order and notice for Assessment Year 2015-16 were barred by limitation under the substituted reassessment regime.

Analysis: The alleged escaped income exceeded the monetary threshold applicable to the extended limitation under the erstwhile regime. The notice issued under the erstwhile regime on 30.06.2021 was within the surviving six-year period. Pursuant to the legal fiction governing such notices, the subsequent notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 27.05.2022. As no reply was furnished within the permitted period, the order under Section 148A(d) and consequential notice under Section 148, both dated 28.07.2022, were issued within the period computed after excluding the time allowed for reply and completion of the statutory process. The stated concession concerning Assessment Year 2015-16 did not apply where the escaped income exceeded the prescribed threshold.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and notice were within limitation and valid; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether assessment orders passed for non-filing of returns are deemed withdrawn upon subsequent filing of the prescribed returns with applicable late fee under Section 62(2).

Analysis: Section 62(2) provides that an assessment made for failure to furnish returns is deemed withdrawn when the registered person furnishes the requisite returns within the stipulated framework and pays the applicable late fee. The returns for the relevant periods were filed and the prescribed late fee was paid. The benefit of the amended provision, consistently applied to condone delay in furnishing GSTR-3B returns, was therefore available.

Conclusion: The assessment orders stood deemed withdrawn, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether adjustment of an earlier mortgage debt towards property consideration could be assessed as unexplained money in the year of purchase; (ii) Whether addition based solely on the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty value was sustainable where the stamp valuation was disputed; (iii) Whether the entire cash deposits could be treated as unexplained money without objectively examining the assessee's explanation and supporting confirmations.

Issue (i): Whether adjustment of an earlier mortgage debt towards property consideration could be assessed as unexplained money in the year of purchase.

Analysis: The registered sale deed recorded adjustment of the consideration against a mortgage debt created under an earlier registered mortgage deed. No material established that the registered documents were false or that unexplained money was invested during the relevant previous year. Any inquiry into the source of the earlier mortgage advance belonged to the year in which that advance was made.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained money was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether addition based solely on the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty value was sustainable where the stamp valuation was disputed.

Analysis: Stamp duty guideline value is a statutory benchmark and cannot invariably be equated with actual fair market value. Despite the assessee's consistent objection, no independent material was brought to establish that the property's fair market value exceeded the recorded consideration.

Conclusion: The addition based on the stamp duty value differential was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the entire cash deposits could be treated as unexplained money without objectively examining the assessee's explanation and supporting confirmations.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished an explanation for the deposits and sought to produce confirmations. The appellate authority rejected the material on technical grounds without examining it or obtaining a remand report. An unsatisfactory explanation does not automatically require a deeming addition; the statutory discretion must be exercised on the facts after proper verification.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained cash deposits was unjustified and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All substantive additions were deleted; the challenge to the scrutiny notice was left open as academic.

Issues: Whether a notice under section 143(2) not conforming to the format prescribed by the CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017 invalidates the consequent assessment despite section 292B.

Analysis: Section 143(2) requires a timely notice requiring the assessee to attend and produce supporting evidence; neither the Act nor the Rules prescribes a statutory format or requires disclosure of the category of scrutiny. The classifications of limited, complete and manual scrutiny arise from departmental administration and cannot be imported as additional statutory conditions for assumption of jurisdiction. Although the CBDT Instruction binds departmental authorities, its breach does not automatically nullify proceedings unless it affects a statutory condition precedent or causes demonstrated prejudice. Where the notice conveyed selection for scrutiny, was issued and served within time, and enabled effective participation, a format deviation is an irregularity of form. Section 292B preserves a notice that is in substance and effect consistent with the Act's purpose, namely initiation of scrutiny and opportunity to substantiate the return.

Conclusion: Non-conformity with the prescribed CBDT format does not by itself invalidate a notice under section 143(2) or the consequential assessment; the defect is procedural and is curable under section 292B. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether, for Assessment Year 2024-25, a resident individual opting for the concessional tax regime could claim rebate under section 87A against income-tax payable where total income included short-term capital gains taxable at the special rate under section 111A.

Analysis: Section 87A, as applicable to Assessment Year 2024-25, grants rebate where the prescribed total-income condition is satisfied under section 115BAC(1A), without distinguishing between normal-rate income and special-rate income. Neither section 87A nor section 111A contains an express exclusion of tax on short-term capital gains from the rebate computation. The restriction expressly enacted for long-term capital gains under section 112A demonstrates that an exclusion, when intended, is specifically provided. The overriding formulation in section 115BAC(1A) concerns computation at concessional and special rates and does not curtail an independent statutory rebate absent an explicit restriction. The subsequent prospective restriction reinforces that no such embargo applied for the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: Rebate under section 87A was available against income-tax on total income, including tax payable on short-term capital gains under section 111A, for Assessment Year 2024-25. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether addition of 6% of purported donations as income was sustainable after deletion of the addition under Section 68; (ii) Whether the political party remained entitled to exemption under Section 13A.

Issue (i): Whether addition of 6% of purported donations as income was sustainable after deletion of the addition under Section 68.

Analysis: The factual finding that bogus donation receipts were issued, the purported donations were returned to the contributors, and the arrangement enabled improper deductions was not open to interference in an appeal under Section 260A. The 6% addition represented income earned from facilitating the false receipts rather than the entire purported donation amount.

Conclusion: Addition of 6% of the purported donations as income was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the political party remained entitled to exemption under Section 13A.

Analysis: The books did not reflect a true and correct position, and the required reports to the Election Commission were either improperly filed or not filed. These violations of the second proviso to Section 13A disentitled the political party from claiming the exemption.

Conclusion: The political party was not entitled to exemption under Section 13A, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions attributable to the receipt-facilitation arrangement and denial of the claimed political-party exemption were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption cannot be claimed where the claimant's accounts and mandatory reporting fail to disclose genuine transactions, and concurrent factual findings of such violations are not revisited in an appeal confined to questions of law.

Issues: Whether a single composite assessment order under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can cover multiple tax periods.

Analysis: A composite order covering November 2018 to September 2019 was inconsistent with the applicable interpretation that a single show-cause notice or assessment order cannot cover more than one tax period where assessment is undertaken before the due date for the annual return, or more than one year where that due date has been reached. Separate proceedings are required for the relevant tax periods.

Conclusion: A composite assessment order spanning multiple tax periods is unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether Parliament possessed legislative competence to enact a cess on machines or processes used for manufacture of pan masala; (ii) Whether the machine-capacity-based cess levy and the fifteen-day minimum period for abatement were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Parliament possessed legislative competence to enact a cess on machines or processes used for manufacture of pan masala.

Analysis: The cess was levied on ownership, possession or operation of machines and processes, rather than on the supply of goods or services. It was therefore neither a goods and services tax under Article 246A nor a surcharge under Article 271. Parliament retained exclusive residuary power under Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I to legislate on a tax not enumerated in Lists II and III.

Conclusion: Parliament has legislative competence to enact a law imposing the cess. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the machine-capacity-based cess levy and the fifteen-day minimum period for abatement were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The levy imposed the same cess on machines within a broad capacity band irrespective of their actual production, thereby treating manufacturers with materially different productive capacities alike. The cess could exceed the total retail value of the output in the illustrated cases. Rule 15 denied abatement for genuine non-operation lasting less than fifteen continuous days, solely on an anti-evasion presumption, without accounting for machinery breakdown, shortage of inputs or labour, or maintenance. The classification and abatement threshold lacked a rational basis proportionate to the levy.

Conclusion: The capacity-based manner of levy and the related abatement regime are arbitrary and violate Article 14; the Act, Rules and consequential notifications are unconstitutional to that extent. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Union's authority to enact a cess law remains intact, but any future levy must conform to the equality guarantee and be founded on a non-arbitrary basis linked to the relevant taxable incidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal levy that treats materially unequal productive capacities identically on assumed output, and denies relief for genuine short-term non-operation through an arbitrary threshold, violates Article 14 notwithstanding Parliament's legislative competence to impose the cess.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order may confirm tax and penalty exceeding the amounts proposed in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of tax and penalty beyond the proposal contained in the show-cause notice. The adjudication order confirmed substantially enhanced CGST and SGST tax demands and corresponding penalties compared with those proposed in the notice. The excess confirmation was therefore beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The adjudication order, insofar as it confirmed tax and penalty beyond the show-cause notice, was without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge mechanism is leviable on meeting fees paid to whole-time directors.

Analysis: A whole-time director is in full-time employment of the company, and remuneration paid for duties performed within that employment framework arises from an employer-employee relationship. The statutory exclusion for services provided by an employee to the employer in the course of employment applies to such payments. The character of the payment as meeting fees does not alter the employment relationship.

Conclusion: Meeting fees paid to whole-time directors are not liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism.

Issues: Whether water charges paid to the State Government under an agreement permitting drawal of water for operating a thermal power plant constitute consideration for a taxable service involving assignment of the right to use natural resources.

Analysis: The agreement provided for supply of a specified quantity of water for a stipulated period, payment calculated per cubic metre of water actually drawn, and use confined to the power plant. The applicable irrigation framework contemplated supply of water for industrial purposes at agreed or prescribed rates. The arrangement was therefore one for supply of water, with charges linked to volume consumed, rather than a grant of an independent right to exploit a governmental natural resource. The established Tribunal decisions on materially identical arrangements were applied.

Conclusion: The transaction was a sale of water and not a taxable service; consequently, no service tax was payable under reverse charge. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue could challenge, in the assessee's appeal, the second assessment order for alleged non-compliance with the revisionary direction under Section 263. (ii) Whether statutory Forms 6R and payment of mandi charges sufficiently established the genuineness of purchases without further certification by the APMC/Mandi Samiti.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue could challenge, in the assessee's appeal, the second assessment order for alleged non-compliance with the revisionary direction under Section 263.

Analysis: An assessment order represents the Revenue's own determination, against which the Revenue has no right of appeal. If the second assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because it did not implement the revisionary direction, the available course was fresh revision. The appellate authority could consider enhancement only upon compliance with the statutory requirements governing such enhancement; no such course was invoked.

Conclusion: The Revenue could not oppose the assessee's appeal by challenging the second assessment order on the ground of non-compliance with the Section 263 direction; its remedy was fresh revision. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether statutory Forms 6R and payment of mandi charges sufficiently established the genuineness of purchases without further certification by the APMC/Mandi Samiti.

Analysis: Forms 6R constituted statutory proof of the mandi transactions. No specific doubt was expressed regarding their genuineness, and no legal provision requiring further APMC/Mandi Samiti certification was identified. The sales turnover was undisputed, while the purchases were supported by Forms 6R and mandi-shulk records. Further verification could arise only upon specific, prima facie doubts concerning particular forms; the Revenue itself also did not obtain the proposed certificates.

Conclusion: In the absence of specific doubts or a statutory requirement for additional certification, the Forms 6R and supporting mandi records could not be disregarded; the purchase addition was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletion of the addition and the appellate relief based on the statutory transaction records remain legally effective.