K. L. SHARMA, J. - (1.) This is a revision under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") directed against the judgment and order dated May 25, 1995, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-II, Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 221 of 1993 (assessment year 1987-88) whereby the assessment proceedings have been remanded to the assessing authority for a fresh decision after inspection of the site. I have heard Mr. Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee as well as Mr. R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgment and other material brought on record. Mr. Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee, has contended that the impugned order of remand was totally unnecessary and the learned Tribunal could itself decide the appeal on the basis of the available material. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the Tribunal has remanded the proceedings, to the assessing authority for the reason that the assessing authority had failed to make local inspection and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused by flood and seepage of nala water in the godown of the assessee wherein the plywood had been kept. There is no doubt that the assessing authority while making assessment order on March 31, 1992 could not evaluate the extent of the damage by any local inspection after lapse of four years. The floods had caused damage in the rains of the year 1987. The plywood is such a commodity as it gets quickly damaged by coming into contact with the water and in the closed godown the damage becomes still quicker. If the assessing authority had acted promptly, it could of course make a local inspection immediately after the rains were over or even at the close of the financial year. It could not get anything out of any local inspection if it was made in the month of March, 1992. Now the Tribunal has directed the assessing authority to make local inspection by its order dated May 25, 1995, i. e. , after expiry of another long three years. Therefore the purpose of making any local inspection after expiry of about 8 years will be wholly abortive and will necessarily consume further time in the finalisation of the assessment for the year 1987-88. I am in agreement with the view of honourable Mr. Justice M. Katju expressed in S. T. R. No. 99 of 1993 reported in 1993 UPTC 407 in the case of Nehru Steel Rolling Mills, Muzaffarnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax which are as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . . . In business it is necessary that a businessman should know where he stands so that he can arrange his financial matters accordingly. Judicial decisions in cases of businessmen must be rendered quickly so that the businessman can know the correct position and act accordingly. A businessman should not be kept on tenterhooks in the matter as has been done in this case, otherwise the time and skill which he would apply for developing his business will have to be diverted to looking after judicial matters. This will be against the interest of the nation which requires encouragement and development of business and industry. . . . . . . . . . . " In that case also the remand order was made unnecessarily when the matter could be decided by the Tribunal on the available material but the learned Tribunal adopted an attitude to get rid of the case and avoid going into the matter deeply and decide the issue once and for all. This kind of attitude was deprecated. In the present case also Tribunal indicated the same kind of attitude by making unnecessary remand of the proceedings after the lapse of about eight years and that too on flimsy grounds for making a local inspection which was not at all called for as the assessee had submitted necessary documents to prove the onslaught of the flood in the year 1987 and seepage of water of adjoining nala and the consequential damage to the plywood and alike goods kept in the godown situated on the Balua Ghat near Jamuna river in Allahabad. The floods and the seepage of the nala water are the facts which are not disputed. The assessee got the benefit in the assessment of income-tax from the income-tax authorities. He also got compensation from the General Insurance Co. , in respect of the goods damaged in the floods which were insured with the Insurance Company. The documentary material was also produced which was properly scanned by the first appellate authority and the reasons given by the first appellate authority for accepting the disclosed turnover filed by the assessee are very cogent and substantiated. The Tribunal in its judgment has not given any reason to arrive at a different conclusion and instead of deciding the matter itself the Tribunal has just avoided to record a decision and to get rid of it, it has remanded the proceedings to the assessing authority. This order of remand is therefore wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is therefore to be directed to dispose of the second appeal on the basis of the material available on record. For the aforesaid reason this revision is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated May 25, 1995 recorded by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 221 of 1993 (assessment year 1987-88) is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is hereby directed to record a fresh decision after hearing on the basis of the available material on record of Second Appeal No. 221 of 1993 (assessment year 1987-88) as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from today. Let a certified copy of order be provided within 4 days on payment of requisite charges. Petition allowed. .;