JUDGMENT An important question of law is involved in this case. Should "ice" be exempted from the payment of sales tax ? I direct the Board of Revenue under Section 21(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to state the case and refer it to the High Court. I am satisfied that a Judge sitting on the Original Side can hear the application and make the order. An application for statement of case to the High Court under Section 21 of the said Act need not be moved on the Appellate Side. The Judge sitting on the Original Side to whom the Chief Justice has assigned the matter is the "High Court" and it is for him to hear the application and to order the statement of the case as contemplated by Section 21(3) of the Act. In computing the period of limitation for an application under Section 21 to require the Board to state a case, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order of the Board of Revenue should be excluded as provided in Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act : Mohammad Hayat v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1929) 3 I.T.C. 319. In this case the time spent in obtaining a copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was excluded under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The language of Section 66(2) is analogous to that of Section 21(2) and (3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. Comment has been made that the application is not in proper form as it invokes the Special Jurisdiction of the High Court and the petition is headed in the following manner :- "In the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal Special Jurisdiction." It has been held that the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Section 66 of the Income-tax Act is a special jurisdiction and forms no part of the Court's Original or Appellate Jurisdiction. The same observation applies to the authority conferred on this Court by Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act : Probhat Chandra Barua v. Emperor (1924) I.L.R. 52 Cal. 546; Alcock Ashdown & Co. v. Chief Revenue Authority of Bombay (1923) L.R. 50 I.A. 227; and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Hungerford Investment Trust, Ltd. (1934) I.L.R. 62 Cal. 671; 3 I.T.R. 188. 546; Alcock Ashdown & Co. v. Chief Revenue Authority of Bombay (1923) L.R. 50 I.A. 227; and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Hungerford Investment Trust, Ltd. (1934) I.L.R. 62 Cal. 671; 3 I.T.R. 188. The same view has been taken in case of an application under the Indian Stamp Act : The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Bombay v. The Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd. (1947) 49 Bom. L.R. 893. Each party will bear his costs of this application. Application allowed.