3. The facts on record also indicate that the petitioner was required to co-operate with his brother during his life time for restoring the registration of Company to the files of the Registrar of Companies/RD. However, the petitioner has failed to co-operate with his brother, who is now represented by his legal heirs, who have been impleaded as respondents 3 to 5. It appears that the business carried out in Unit A under the control of petitioner’s brother and later by the newly impleaded respondents, namely, respondents 3 to 5 have been stopped. They have taken steps for cancelling the Goods and Services Tax Registration. Unit B, on the other hand, under the control of the petitioner is still carrying on business. The revenue cannot be denied of the tax that is payable for the supplies effected by the petitioner from Unit B and therefore, the private respondents, namely, respondents 3 to 5 cannot have a say by stating that the second respondent itself has ceazed to exist and therefore the petitioner can neither carry on the business nor pay the tax for the supplies already effected. The private dispute between the petitioner and the legal heirs of late G.Gurusamy has to be resolved in the National Company Law Tribunal, which is now seized of the matter. However, as long as there is supply of goods and service from the second respondent from Unit B, there cannot be any embargo from payment of tax. The private respondents also cannot strangulate the business of Unit B under control of the petitioner.
