JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - In this case there is a condonation of two days and C.M.P. No. 3236 of 1992 relates to the prayer of condonation. Said delay is condoned and the matter is taken up for decision. 2. This revision gets a heavy dent at the very route of its initiation. Under section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in a situation of escapement of assessment to tax in any year, for any reason, the assessing authority can at any time within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to determine the turnover in relation to the escapement in question. It is the statutory condition precedent that before making such assessment, the dealer is required to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is but natural in the process that the reasonable opportunity expected by the statutory provision has a definite direction with reference to the reason for determination in regard to the escapement in question. 3. The assessee is a dealer in empty bottles at Kodimatha. In fact the original assessment was completed as per the office proceedings on June 5, 1987. This is with regard to the assessment year 1984-85. The assessing authority, acted on the basis of declaration in form 18 under section 5(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and found in view of the Amendment Act 3 of 1983 (October 14, 1982) continuing till the enactment of the Kerala Finance Act, 1987 (18 of 1987) (July 1, 1987) omitting the same with reference to the empty bottles as packing material, allowing concession thereunder. 4. Four years as per the provisions of section 19(1) from the expiry of the year in question (March 31, 1985) were to expire on March 31, 1989. As is usual as we have experienced a little before the above date completing 4 years, on February 8, 1989, the assessing authority issued notice of revision of assessment. The very text of the notice would show that a close question is sought to be reopened without any kind of reason in regard thereto. As is usual as we have experienced a little before the above date completing 4 years, on February 8, 1989, the assessing authority issued notice of revision of assessment. The very text of the notice would show that a close question is sought to be reopened without any kind of reason in regard thereto. The notice states as follows : "But now it is learnt that the application of the concessional rate of tax to the sale of bottles allowed would appear to be not correct." It is with regard to this the assessee is expected to exercise the statutory freedom of reasonable opportunity afforded to him. Apart from the fact that no reason is given, this faulty and vague statement regarding the knowledge that the concessional rate of tax, that again would appear to be not correct is the very basis of further action. 5. Needless to state that in reply dated February 16, 1989, within almost eight days thereafter the assessee was emphatic to put it on record that no reason is given for such a finding, with a contention thereafter that form No. 18 is duly filled and they were accepted only concessions as per the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was given. The assessee has also reiterated that statutorily reasons are required to be furnished to enable the assessee to file objections and since no such reason is given, the assessee was not in a position to furnish objections. 6. Thus it is clear that a close situation is sought to be reopened in such fashion, knowledge at the very route of the initiation. 7. Apart therefrom the assessing authority has referred to yet another pigment of imagination from the record. The reason for the reopening according to the authority is as follows : "Since bottles cannot be treated as component part under section 5(3) or 5(3A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act." which is totally absent in the context of the notice. 8. It is thereafter that the authority has taken up the further path in the matter and by the order dated March 1, 1989 reopened the assessment holding that application of section 5(7) of the Act is not correct as the bottle is a distinct identity and no more as a container and they are also not known as packing materials. 9. 9. The first appellate authority - Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam considered the matter and before him also a contention is taken up that there is no reason to reopen the assessment under section 19 as no case of escapement is spelt out as statutorily required. Even then the appellate authority has proceeded to consider the question as to whether the empty bottle could be a packing material as contemplated under section 5(7) of the Act, a contention having been already accepted before by the authority itself. 10. The travel of the proceedings before the Tribunal also refers to a specific contention and even then inspite of the same being prominent as ground No. 2a as reproduced in the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the situation satisfies the requirement of section 5(7) stated above. 11. Thus it would appear that the necessary edifice to justify the initiation by a situation requiring satisfaction of section 19 of the Act is found lacking. The proceedings are reopened contrary to the statutory provisions as stated above. 12. In this view of the matter the entire proceedings would have to be termed as being without jurisdiction by reason of absence of satisfaction of the requirements of section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and consequently are hereby quashed and set aside. Revisions case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.