( 1 ) THE applicants, Messrs. Gopaldas Sarvadayal were assessed to sales tax and, after having appealed against the assessment to Judge (Appeals), they came in revision before the Judge (Revisions ). The revision application was heard by the learned Judge on 4-6-1951, and the order under Sub-section (3) of Section 10, U. P. Sales Tax Act, on that application was dictated and pronounced in open Court on the same date by the learned Judge (Revisions ). On 6-8-1951. the applicants moved an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the act, requiring the Revising Authority to refer to the High Court certain questions of law arising out of that order. The application was returned to the applicants on the ground that it was not accompanied by a copy of the order passed under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. The copy of that order, required to be sent to the applicants under Rule 70 of the rules framed under the Act, was received by the applicants on 20-8-1951. Thereafter the applicants again sent their application for reference of the questions of law to the Court by post accompanied by a copy of the order that had been sent by them. This application was received by the Judge (Revisions) on 25-8-1951. At the hearing of this application, a question arose whether it was time barred. The learned Judge (Revisions) held that the application was time-barfed and, consequently, rejected it. Thereupon the applicants moved this Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act, requesting that this Court may require the Revising Authority to state the case and refer it to this Court. That application came up before a Division Bench of this Court which, in the circumstances mentioned above, referred the following question to a Pull Bench for opinion ;

"q. Whether, in computing the period of sixty days within which an application must be matte under Sub-section (1) of Section 11, U. P. Sales Tax Act (as in force in the year 1952) an assessee is entitled to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order under sub-section (3) of Section 10?"

( 2 ) THE period of 60 days, within which the application had to be made to the Revising Authority requiring it to refer to the High Court questions of law arising out of an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 10, U. P. Sales Tax Act, was prescribed in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of that act itself. The U. P. Sales Tax Act contained no provision making the provisions of the limitation Act applicable in computing the period of limitation prescribed under that Act. There is, however, no doubt that Section 29, Limitation Act, is applicable to the U. P. Sales Tax act which is a special law dealing with sales tax in Uttar Pradesh having been passed by the U. P. Legislature. Under Section 29, Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the U. P. Sales Tax Act has to be computed after applying the provisions contained in Sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22, Limitation Act, as laid down in this latter Act. It is, therefore, clear that Section 12, Limitation act, on which reliance has peen placed by the applicants is applicable to proceedings under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 12, Limitation Act, lays down that

"in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. "

The applicants are clearly entitled to this benefit of excluding the day on which the order under sub-section (3) of Section 10, U. P. Sales Tax Act, was passed by the Judge (Revisions ). This, however, does not assist the applicants. What they desire is that the benefit provided by sub-section (2) of Section 12, Limitation Act, might be made available to them. Sub-section (2)of Section 12, Limitation Act, is as follows:"12 (2 ). In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application