Court dismisses petition, emphasizes exhaustion of remedies, upholds disallowance of cash payments, vacates interim order.

The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to exhaust available remedies under the Income-tax Act before approaching the court directly. The court upheld decisions regarding disallowance of cash payments based on previous rulings and rejected the petitioner's plea to reconsider those decisions. The interim order was vacated, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Petition under article 226 to quash Income-tax Officer's proceedings and challenge rule 6DD, refusal of registration to firm, disallowance of cash payments, maintainability of petition due to alternative remedy.

Refusal of Registration to Firm: A partnership firm applied for registration under section 184 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74 but was refused due to the deed of partnership not being signed by the guardian of the minor partner. Appeals to various authorities were made, and a pending appeal for the assessment year 1974-75 raised apprehensions of a similar refusal.

Challenge of Cash Payments Disallowance: Income-tax Officer proposed to disallow certain cash payments made by the petitioner firm, leading to a challenge in the petition. The petitioner argued against the disallowance and sought to bypass the appeal process by directly approaching the court.

Maintainability of Petition: The standing counsel raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, citing alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the Income-tax Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to previous court rulings and doubts on the correctness of those rulings, the appeal process would be futile.

Judgment: The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should exhaust the available remedies under the Act before approaching the court directly. The court upheld the decisions regarding disallowance of cash payments based on previous rulings and rejected the petitioner's plea to reconsider those decisions. The interim order was vacated, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.

---