JUDGMENT : C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. 1. Both the above writ appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Single Judge, dated 03.09.2019. Officials of the State Government in the Forest Department and in the Goods and Services Tax Department, who were the respondents in the writ petitions, are the appellants herein. The respondent in both these appeals is the writ petitioner. 2. Issue involved is as to whether the respondent is liable to pay 18% tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘IGST Act’ for short) with respect to the goods of Sandal Wood purchased by them in the auction conducted at the Forest Depot, they being units situated in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3. The tender notification in question contained a clause that the successful bidder should remit 35% of the bid amount - within 7 days of issuance of the acceptance letter. Further stipulation is that, the balance amount along with applicable VAT, FDT and other taxes if any, has to be remitted within 14 days from the issuance of the acceptance letter. In another part of the notification it is stated that, the successful bidder should remit VAT at 14.5%. It is also evident from the sale confirmation letters issued to the writ petitioners, that the total amount required to be remitted included IGST @ 18%. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the demand for remittance of 18% IGST. Inter-alia, they sought for a direction to the appellants to accept the purchase value, excluding the amount of IGST demanded. 4. The writ petitions were allowed by holding that, the transactions in question involves tax liability only at zero-rate. The writ petitioner was given permission to deposit the amounts demanded, excluding the 18% IGST. The writ petitioner was also directed to keep all statutory obligations in the movement of the goods in question to its destination, without any diversion. The appellants are directed to make delivery of the goods within one week from the date on which communication is received from the writ petitioner with respect to remittance of the amounts liable. The above finding is challenged on the basis that, the transaction in question will attract IGST liability not at zero rate. 5. The writ petitioner in both these cases is a unit situated at the Madras Export Processing Zone (SEZ), Phase-II, Plot B-25, Chennai-45. The above finding is challenged on the basis that, the transaction in question will attract IGST liability not at zero rate. 5. The writ petitioner in both these cases is a unit situated at the Madras Export Processing Zone (SEZ), Phase-II, Plot B-25, Chennai-45. Documents evidencing registration of the unit as a SEZ Unit is produced along the writ petitions. The writ petitioner was required to pay 18% IGST on the value of the goods supplied, by treating the transaction as an inter-State supply of goods, which is leviable with tax as provided under Section 5 of the IGST Act. Contention raised was that, the supply of goods is to a SEZ unit, which can be considered only as a zero-rated supply, by virtue of provisions contained in Section 16 of the IGST Act. The appellants disputed that, since the location of the supplier and the place of supply are within the State, the transaction will attract payment of tax. In this regard, a scanning of the relevant provisions contained in Sections 7 and 8, in Chapter-IV as well as Section 10 in Chapter-V of the IGST Act will be beneficial. 6. Chapter-IV deals with the nature of supply. Sections 7 and 8 contained therein are extracted here under:- “7. Inter-State supply (1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, supply of goods, where the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in:- (a) two different States. (b) two different Union territories. (c) a State and a Union territory. Shall be treated as a supply of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (2) Supply of goods imported into the territory of India, till they cross the customs frontiers of India, shall be treated to be a supply of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (3) Subject to the provisions of section 12, supply of services, where the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in:- (a) two different States. (b) two different Union territories. (c) a State and a Union territory. Shall be treated as a supply of services in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (4) Supply of services imported into the territory of India shall be treated to be a supply of services in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (b) two different Union territories. (c) a State and a Union territory. Shall be treated as a supply of services in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (4) Supply of services imported into the territory of India shall be treated to be a supply of services in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. (5) Supply of goods or services or both:- (a) when the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outside India. (b) to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit. (c) in the taxable territory, not being an intra-State supply and not covered elsewhere in this section, shall be treated to be a supply of goods or services or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. 8. Intra-State supply (1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, supply of goods where the location of the supplier and the place of supply of goods are in the same State or same Union territory shall be treated as intra-State supply: PROVIDED that the following supply of goods shall not be treated as intra-State supply, namely:- (i) supply of goods to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit. (ii) goods imported into the territory of India till they cross the customs frontiers of India. (iii) supplies made to a tourist referred to in section 15. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 12, supply of services where the location of the supplier and the place of supply of services are in the same State or same Union territory shall be treated as intra-State supply: PROVIDED that the intra-State supply of services shall not include supply of services to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit. Explanation 1 - For the purposes of this Act, where a person has:- (i) an establishment in India and any other establishment outside India. (ii) an establishment in a State or Union territory and any other establishment outside that State or Union territory. (iii) an establishment in a State or Union territory and any other establishment [xxx] registered within that State or Union territory. Then such establishments shall be treated as establishments of distinct persons. (ii) an establishment in a State or Union territory and any other establishment outside that State or Union territory. (iii) an establishment in a State or Union territory and any other establishment [xxx] registered within that State or Union territory. Then such establishments shall be treated as establishments of distinct persons. Explanation 2 - A person carrying on a business through a branch or an agency or a representational office in any territory shall be treated as having an establishment in that territory.” 7. Chapter-V deals with the place of supply of goods or services or both. Section 10 under the said Chapter is extracted here under: “10. Place of supply of goods other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India: (1) The place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India, shall be as under:- (a) where the supply involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person, the place of supply of such goods shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient. (b) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a recipient or any other person on the direction of a third person, whether action as an agent or otherwise, before or during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of documents of title to the goods or otherwise, it shall be deemed that the said third person has received the goods and the place of supply of such goods shall be the principal place of business of such person. (c) where the supply does not involve movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient, the place of supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of the delivery to the recipient. (d) where the goods are assembled or installed at site, the place of supply shall be the place of such installation or assembly. (e) where the goods are supplied on board a conveyance, including a vessel, an aircraft, a train or a motor vehicle, the place of supply shall be the location at which such goods are taken on board. (2) Where the place of supply of goods cannot be determined, the place of supply shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.” 8. (2) Where the place of supply of goods cannot be determined, the place of supply shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.” 8. Section 7(1) provides that subject to Section 10 of the IGST Act, supply of goods shall be treated as a supply of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, where the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in two different States or in two different Union territories or in a State and in a Union territory. 9. Section 10 of the IGST Act provides that, place of the supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into or exported from India, shall be as enumerated thereunder. Sub-clause (c) of Section 10(1) provides that, where the supply does not involve movements of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient, the place of supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of delivery to the recipient. 10. In the case at hand, the Sandal Wood stocked in the Depot of the Forest Department at Marayoor was put to auction, by specifying the quantity thereof. On a perusal of the tender notification as well as the conditions incorporated therein, it is revealed that, the successful bidder should take delivery of the goods from the said Depot, on remittance of the requisite amount. Therefore the supply of goods in between the auctioneer and the successful bidder ends up with delivery of goods at the Depot itself. Hence the supply of goods in the case at hand does not involve any movement of goods. Therefore, going by Section 10(1)(c) of the IGST Act, the supply of goods in the case at hand is a supply which does not involve movement of goods. Therefore the place of supply can only be considered as the location of such goods at the time of delivery effected to the recipient, which is at the Depot at Marayoor, within the State itself. In the case at hand, the location of both the supplier and the place of supply are within one State itself. Therefore the supply of goods in the case is not in two States or in two different Union territories or in a State and in a Union territory, as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the IGST Act. In the case at hand, the location of both the supplier and the place of supply are within one State itself. Therefore the supply of goods in the case is not in two States or in two different Union territories or in a State and in a Union territory, as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the IGST Act. But subsection (5) of Section 7, especially sub-clause (b) therein, provides that, if the supply of goods is to a SEZ unit, such supply shall be treated to be a supply of goods in the course of interstate trade or commerce. The word “supply” is defined under the IGST Act to have the same meaning as assigned in Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) Act. Section 7(1) of CGST Act provides that, all forms of supply of goods such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business, would constitute “supply.” Therefore the auction sale of Sandal Wood conducted in the case would squarely fall within the ambit and scope of “supply of goods.” Going by sub-section 5 of Section 7 of the IGST Act, such supply if any made to any Special Economic Zone unit should be treated as a supply of goods in the course of intra-state trade or commerce. Therefore it is evident that the supply of goods involved in the transaction in question can only be treated as a supply of goods in the course of intra-state trade or commerce. 11. Further, going by provisions contained in Section 8 of the IGST Act, which determines what is intra-state supply, which provides that, when the location of the supply and the place of supply of goods are in the same State or same Union territory it shall be treated as intra-state supply. In order to ascertain as to where is the place of supply, the provisions contained in Section 10 can be of assistance. Sub-section (c) of Section 10(1) provides that, where the supply does not involve movement of goods, whether by the supplier or by the recipient, the place of supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of delivery to the recipient. Sub-section (c) of Section 10(1) provides that, where the supply does not involve movement of goods, whether by the supplier or by the recipient, the place of supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of delivery to the recipient. In the case at hand, it cannot be disputed that, pursuant to confirmation of the auction, the goods has to be delivered by the appellants to the respondent on making deposit of the requested amount. In other words, the supply of goods in the case will be concluded by effecting delivery of the goods to the recipient at the Depot in question. Since the location of the goods at the time of delivery by the recipient is the Depot at Marayoor, the place of supply is also within the State. Hence it can safely be concluded that the location of the supplier and the place of supply of goods are within the State of Kerala itself. Therefore the “supply of goods” in the case will come within the purview of the intra-state supply as determined in Section 8(1) of the IGST Act. But the proviso to the said section contains few exemptions. One among such exemption provided under sub-section(i) of the proviso to Section 8(1) is with respect to supply of goods to a Special Economic Zone Unit. The proviso says that supply of goods to a SEZ Unit shall not be treated as intra-state supply, Therefore it can be treated only as an inter-state supply, especially when Section 7(5)(b) provides that supply of goods to or by a Special Economic Zone Unit should be treated to be a supply of goods in the course of inter-State trade. From the above quoted provisions of law, it has to be held that the supply of goods involved in the present case is an inter-state supply. 12. Next question arising is with respect to the rate of tax applicable. Section 16 of the IGST Act clearly provides that, supply of goods to a SEZ Unit is a “zero-rated supply.” Therefore the demand made by appellants 1 and 2 for payment of IGST at the rate of 18% cannot be sustained. 13. Contentions of the appellants is mainly based on a Division Bench decision of this court in W.A. No. 2665/2015, dated 14.06.2017. 13. Contentions of the appellants is mainly based on a Division Bench decision of this court in W.A. No. 2665/2015, dated 14.06.2017. In an identical sale of Sandal Wood by authorities of the Forest Department through public auction, it was found that the general condition of the tender would indicate that the sale was to be effected at the godown of the Department at Marayoor. It was found that, the tenderer had participated in the auction sale only by choosing to abide by the conditions stipulated in the Tender. It was found that, in an auction sale the sale become complete when it is confirmed, on the fall of the hammer, as settled by the apex court in various cases. It was found that, at no point of time the appellant in that case had informed about any deviation from the tender conditions, especially to the effect of informing that they were not liable to pay any tax under the local law, because the intended purchase was in the course of export through their unit situated in a Special Economic Zone at Tamil Nadu. Since such an intimation or claim to the effect that no tax under the local statutes would apply, was not seen raised, it was found that the tenderer is bound by the specific conditions set forth in the tender notification. It was also found that the term whenever applicable, mentioned in the tender condition specifies about the different types of taxes, like KVAT, FDT, TCS etc. Therefore it is found that, when the KVAT at the prevalent rate will be applicable to all the successful bidders, irrespective of the destination of transportation of goods, the successful bidder is liable to pay the tax at local Value Added Tax, at the rate applicable. It was found that, the State is entitled to get appropriate extent of tax as in any other instance of sale, if the transaction is covered by any taxable event. Therefore the contention raised by the appellants in that case, that they have to be exempted from payment of tax because they are transporting it to a SEZ Unit, was negated. 14. The circumstances in the case at hand is totally different. The instance of taxation or the taxable event is the supply of goods contemplated under the IGST Act. Therefore the contention raised by the appellants in that case, that they have to be exempted from payment of tax because they are transporting it to a SEZ Unit, was negated. 14. The circumstances in the case at hand is totally different. The instance of taxation or the taxable event is the supply of goods contemplated under the IGST Act. It is specifically provided that supply of goods made to a SEZ unit is an inter-state supply. Further it is also evident from the provisions that, despite the location of the supplier and the place of supply is within the State itself, it cannot be treated as an intra-state supply, because the supply is made to a SEZ Unit. Going by provisions contained in the IGST Act, the inter state supply in the instant case is a “zero rate supply.” Therefore, there exists no tax liability involved in the supply of goods. That being the position, coupled with the condition incorporated in the tender that the value of the goods need to be paid only with applicable tax, would make it clear that the tenderer is not liable to pay any tax at 18%. Such a rate is not at all applicable with respect to the supply of goods involved. 15. Dr. Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, raised a further contention that it is a well settled principle that a sale in the course of inter-state trade has got 3 ingredients such as (i) a contract of sale incorporating a stipulation, express or implied, regarding interstate movement of goods (ii) the goods must actually move from one state to another pursuant to such contract of sale and (iii) such movement of goods from one state to another where the sale concludes. It is contended that, as a corollary to the said principle, if the movement of goods take place independent of the contract, it will not fall within the meaning of inter-state sale. But, with due consideration, we may observe that, those principles are settled based on provisions contained in Central Sales Tax Act, which was applicable during the relevant period. Under the Goods and Services Tax regime, any transaction of supply of goods is governed by the definitions and provisions contained in the CGST Act and in the IGST Act. But, with due consideration, we may observe that, those principles are settled based on provisions contained in Central Sales Tax Act, which was applicable during the relevant period. Under the Goods and Services Tax regime, any transaction of supply of goods is governed by the definitions and provisions contained in the CGST Act and in the IGST Act. When it is provided under the statute as to what determines the nature of inter-state supply and intra-state supply, no one can go beyond provisions of the said Acts in order to decide the nature of the supply. From the conclusions arrived at as above, it need to be held clearly that, going by provisions of the IGST Act the supply to a SEZ Unit can only be considered as inter-state supply. As long as such supply remains as a Zero-rated supply the demand for payment of 18% IGST cannot be sustained. 16. Lastly, yet another contention was raised to the effect that, the proviso to Section 8 (1) exempting supply of goods to SEZ Unit from the purview of intra-state supply, can be deemed to apply only with respect to a SEZ Unit situated within the state itself. For accepting such a contention, something has to be read into the plain and literal meaning of the proviso, which is not at all warranted, because the literal meaning or the intentional meaning would not give rise to any ambiguity or lack of clarity. Further, Section 7 (5) (b) would make it clear that despite the location of the supplier and the place of supplier being not within two different states, it should be treated as a supply of goods in the course of inter-state trade, when the supply is made to a SEZ Unit. When the rate applicable to such supply is determined as Zero-rate supply, the demand for any higher rate cannot be sustained. It is pertinent to note that, neither under Section 7 (5) (b) or under the proviso (I) of Section 8 (1); nor under Section 16 (1) (b) there is no distinction with respect to the location of the SEZ unit, whether it is within the state or out side the state. Therefore the above argument cannot be countenanced, at any rate. 17. Therefore the above argument cannot be countenanced, at any rate. 17. Result of the above discussion is that, the conclusions arrived by the learned Single Judge and the relief granted in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any illegality, error or impropriety. Consequently the writ appeals fail and they are hereby dismissed.