{"id":1239,"date":"2025-08-04T04:45:23","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T04:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239"},"modified":"2025-08-04T04:45:23","modified_gmt":"2025-08-04T04:45:23","slug":"gst-8-a-journey-via-eight-amendments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239","title":{"rendered":"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goods and Services Tax (\u2018GST\u2019) came into force eight years ago on 1 July 2017. Eight long, eventful years that have been full of sound and fury. But, do they signify something? Yes and No. Yes, because GST, at times, operates like a tinkered version of State-VAT laws and not a transformative reform of India\u2019s indirect tax regime. At other times, GST reveals glimpses of its potential as a transformative reform, only to be bogged down by unexplained and reactive changes introduced by a heavy handed tax administration. On average, GST continues to meander between these two versions. As I argued elsewhere before, it is a reform that is continuously deformed<\/a>.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, let me take you through GST\u2019s journey of eight years via the prism of eight statutory amendments. And, like most amendments to Indian tax laws, a majority of the amendments to Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018CGST Act of 2017\u2019) are tied to the hip with judgements that didn’t align with the Revenue Department’s view. In this article, I focus only on eight amendments to underline the nature of some of the changes made to GST. In no particular order, here is the list:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Journey in Eight Amendments <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Actionable Claims become Specified Actionable Claims   <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally, only three actionable claims were subject to GST: betting, lotteries, and gambling. GST was hit with the curveball of online gaming, which wasn\u2019t expressly included or excluded from GST\u2019s scope. Courts classified a species of online gaming, i.e., fantasy games, as games of skill<\/a> which immediately put them out of the purview of three actionable claims and beyond GST\u2019s scope. The Revenue Department took the stance that all online gaming amounted to gambling and was subject to GST, and the value of supply was the entire amount staked by players and not just the platform fee collected by the online intermediary. The Revenue Department accordingly issued show cause notices to online gaming companies alleging obscene amounts<\/a> of tax evasion. Eventually, the Karnataka High Court pronounced the Gameskraft judgment<\/a> dismantling the Revenue Department\u2019s entire (mis)understanding and deliberate misinterpretation of gambling law jurisprudence. But, CGST Act of 2017 was amended<\/a> almost immediately thereafter in 2023 to include online gaming and casinos in the amended definition of \u2018specified actionable claims\u2019. Whether the amendment will have retrospective effect is an open question, though the Revenue Department would certainly prefer going back in time to collect taxes by claiming that the amendment is only clarificatory in nature. Which it is certainly not. The Supreme Court, currently seized of the appeal against the Karnataka High Court\u2019s judgment, may provide some clarity, though the amendment of 2023 has ensured that all kinds of online gaming \u2013 games of skill or games of chance \u2013 are now expressly within the purview of GST. Irrespective, the amendment of 2023 may now pave way for the Revenue Department to actually recover the huge tax amounts<\/a> it claimed has been evaded by online gaming companies. The Revenue Department\u2019s claims of amount of tax evaded may prove to be a fantasy or a bountiful reality. Time will tell.        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Doctrine of Mutuality is Buried, But Alive   <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The simple concept underlying doctrine of mutuality is that a person cannot transact with themselves and such transactions cannot be subjected to sales tax or service tax. Indian courts applied the above doctrine to keep transactions between a club and its members outside the tax net by reasoning that there was complete identity between the two constituents. To bring transactions between clubs and its members within the tax net, the 46th<\/sup> Constitutional Amendment introduced a legal fiction via Article 366(29-A)(e) in the Constitution and seemingly buried the doctrine of mutuality. Decades later in 2019, the Supreme Court in Calcutta Club Ltd case<\/a> held that the Parliament only intended to include unincorporated clubs in Article 366(29-A)(e) and not incorporated clubs. The Supreme Court concluded that doctrine of mutuality continued to be applicable to incorporated and unincorporated member\u2019s clubs even after the 46th<\/sup>Constitutional Amendment. To contain the spillover effect of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in GST, the Revenue Department immediately amended Section 7 of CGST Act of 2017<\/a> which defines supply. The amendment implemented with retrospective effect, introduced clause (aa) to Section 7 of CGST Act of 2017 and was intended to undo the effect of the Calcutta Club judgment as it incorporated a legal fiction that a constituent and its members were distinct persons. And transactions between them constituted supply. After the amendment, all was seemingly well and doctrine of mutuality was inapplicable to GST, until the Kerala High Court<\/a> declared the amendment of Section 7 of CGST Act of 2017 as unconstitutional. The Kerala High Court reasoned that the legal fiction of treating a single person as two, went beyond the Constitutional understanding of the term sale which necessarily involves two members. Prima facie the Kerala High Court seems to have correctly found a gap in the Constitutional prescription and statutory definition. Presumably, the Supreme Court will have the final word on this issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. ITC Conditions Become Increasingly Onerous  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes conditions to claim Input Tax Credit (\u2018ITC\u2019) for taxpayers. The conditions for ITC have changed in the past eight years including phasing out provisional ITC<\/a>. The most significant change in claiming ITC was Section 16(2)(aa)<\/a> which was introduced in 2021. Section 16(2)(aa) restricts ITC of a taxpayer until the details of the invoice or debit note have not been furnished by the supplier in their monthly output statement and the same have been communicated to the recipient. In simpler terms, a purchaser cannot claim ITC for the GST paid on their inputs\/purchases until their supplier accurately and timely uploads the relevant invoices in their monthly returns. For it is only when the supplier completes and files their monthly returns with invoice details would the purchase be reflected in the purchaser\u2019s relevant return and provide basis of their ITC claim. The introduction of Section 16(2)(aa) effectively made the purchaser dependent on the supplier for claiming ITC. Making a purchaser dependent on the supplier for ITC was an exception or an outlier in pre-GST regimes, and reserved only for cases where there was prima facie or established collusion between a purchaser and a supplier. Under GST, it has now become the default policy. The mere fact that the purchaser possesses the invoice or debit\/credit note reflecting the purchase and payment of GST is not enough evidence of a genuine supply. The amendment with introduction of clause (aa) is good as the Revenue Department outsourcing to the purchaser the obligation of verifying the bona fide and tax habits of its supplier(s). Equally, the purchaser shares the burden of making sure the supplier remits the GST to the State, else the purchaser may not be able to claim ITC despite having paid GST to the supplier.         <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Scope of Provisional Attachment Expands <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 originally empowered the Commissioner to issue an order for provisional attachment during the pendency of proceedings. And, if in the opinion of the Commissioner, it was necessary to attach the property to protect the interest of the Revenue an order for provisional attachment could be issued against a property owned by the taxpayer. After a few judgments, the Revenue Department discovered that the safeguard of \u2018pendency of proceedings\u2019 was a hurdle to its desire of arrogating to itself unfettered powers. Equally, the courts clarified that power of provisional attachment only extended to the property owned by the taxpayer. For example, the Bombay High Court<\/a> clarified that powers of provisional attachment only extended to taxpayers against whom proceedings were initiated against the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. And that the Revenue Department could not automatically attach properties of other taxpayers.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 was amended to provide the Commissioner power to provisionally attach property any time after initiation of proceedings. Also, the Commissioner could provisionally attach property of any person mentioned in Section 122 implying the property attached need not necessarily belong to the person against whom proceedings were initiated. The expansion of scope of powers of provisional attachment is at odds to its repeated characterisation as a draconian power<\/a> with far reaching effects. Ideally, the power of provisional attachment should be kept narrow and circumscribed unless there is a compelling reason to expand it. The amendment of Section 83 seemed achieved the opposite effect to the detriment of taxpayer rights. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in recognition of debilitating effect of the amendment has issued guidelines<\/a> for officers to exercise restraint in exercise of such powers. However, the amendment expanded the scope of power of provisional attachment diluting the safeguards in the guidelines. While the power of provisional attachment is necessary in some cases, the expansion of its scope power that has titled the scales of intrusion and intervention heavily in favour of the Revenue Department.         <\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Confiscating Goods, and Removing a Non-Obstante Clause <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally, Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act of 2017 began with a non-obstante clause giving birth to an interpretive question: which provision will supersede the other? Equally, while both provisions provided for procedure of detention and confiscation respectively, there was also an inter-linkage between the provisions. Detention of goods under Section 129, on non-payment of penalty, could lead to confiscation of goods under Section 130. This gave rise to the second question, i.e., whether confiscation is linked to detention? Courts tried to interpret the provisions harmoniously multiple times clarified that both provisions were independent of each other. In 2021, the non-obstante clause from Section 130 was removed to \u2018delink<\/a>\u2019 both the provisions and bring more clarity. However, an equally pertinent issue of the Revenue Department mechanically and routinely confiscating goods remains addressed. Courts had repeatedly cautioned the Revenue Department to not invoke Section 130 unless the taxpayer had an intention to evade tax. However, we haven\u2019t seen the practice of directly confiscating goods abate even after the amendment. Absence of a single document or a patent misdescription of goods, misclassification of goods or any similar ground can lead to confiscation of goods. The threshold remains low leading to unnecessary adversity for taxpayers.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Amendment to \u2018Operationalise\u2019 GSTATs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2019, the Madras High Court<\/a> declared the provisions for composition of GSTATs as unconstitutional. The judgment proved to be a spoke in the wheel preventing immediate operationalisation of GSTATs, but what followed was an exemplary display of snail-paced policy making that continues its slow march. Neither did the Revenue Department appeal against the Madras High Court\u2019s judgment, nor were the relevant provisions amended with a sense of urgency that the issue demanded. Eventually, after 4 years, via the Finance Act, 2023 provisions relating to composition of GSTATs were amended to provide an immediate spring for operationalisation of GSTATs. However, vis-\u00e0-vis GSTATs, only piecemeal changes have been made since 2023. A semi-operational website, regular recruitment advertisements, appointment of some personnel for ceremonial purposes<\/a> have been completed, but GSTATs continue to be in limbo. I\u2019ve previously argued<\/a> that the GST\u2019s rule of law foundation is proving to be weak and effective given that GSTATs are not operating. GSTATs form a crucial role in dispute resolution as they are designed as the first appellate forum and a fact finding authority. But, despite the amendment of 2023, little progress have been made to provide a sounder footing for fair dispute resolution under GST. Instead, the burden is being borne by advance authorities, whose rulings are typically poorly authored and binding only on the parties to the petition. Equally, the High Courts continue to shoulder the disproportionate burden of adjudication via writ petitions where they have to undertake the fact finding exercise and lay down the law in detail of a relatively novel law. A less than ideal, in fact dismal state of affairs for GST \u2013 a law that has been repeatedly touted as a transformative reform of indirect tax regime.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. \u2018Or\u2019 Becomes \u2018And\u2019 to Nullify Safari Retreats Judgment <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018And\u2019 does not mean \u2018Or\u2019, was Supreme Court\u2019s strict interpretation in Safari Retreats case<\/a>. The Supreme Court opined that if use of \u2018Or\u2019 was a legislative mistake, then it could have been corrected in the interim period between the High Court\u2019s judgment and hearing before the Supreme Court. The Revenue Dept, after the Supreme Court\u2019s decision said yes, it was an error. And we will correct it now, via a retrospective amendment<\/a>. No explanation given as to why the legislative \u2018error\u2019 was not corrected after the High Court\u2019s judgment and why the Revenue Department chose to fight a prolonged litigation if the \u2018error\u2019 was apparent and well-known. And why the Revenue Department file a review petition despite deciding \u2013 after recommendations of the GST Council \u2013 to amend the CGST Act of 2017 retrospectively. The broader issue that the amendment brings into focus is lack of hesitation in introducing a retrospective amendment. While the CGST Act of 2017 has been amended retrospectively previously \u2013 for example, when amending the definition of supply under Section 7 to nullify the Calcutta Club case ratio \u2013 this amendment after Supreme Court\u2019s judgment revealed that not much has changed under GST regime. The Revenue Department fought a case and advocated a particular interpretation. When the Supreme Court did not agree with the Revenue Department\u2019s view, the law was amended swiftly. The Revenue Department continues to assert that the Supreme Court did not interpret \u2018legislative intent<\/a>\u2019, a standard excuse when any judgment doesn\u2019t align with the Revenue Department\u2019s interpretation.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Anti-Profiteering Regime Ends<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While not a statutory amendment, this policy change was one of the most welcome changes brought to the GST regime. National Anti-Profiteering Authority (\u2018NAA\u2019) was established to protect consumer interests due to implementation of GST. NAA, however, never satisfied the parameters of a fair dispute resolution body<\/a>. Its biggest contribution to GST was in November 2022, when its mandate was brought to an end and its remit was officially transferred<\/a> to the Competition Commission of India. NAA, during its existence, pronounced a large volume of orders which were essentially a replica of each other. The orders were full rhetoric, obfuscation, devoid of basic legal reasoning, and imposed multiple and heavy penalties on taxpayers for seemingly violating the anti-profiteering mandate contained in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, a formal end to the NAA\u2019s regime was a net positive contribution to GST. While the Delhi High Court, in a sub-par judgment has upheld the constitutionality of NAA<\/a>, it doesn\u2019t whitewash the rhetoric-filled and nuanced deprived NAA orders. And the Delhi High Court has allowed the taxpayers to challenge the individual orders of NAA on the ground of arbitrariness, among others. While the entire superstructure of NAA could have been easily held to be unconstitutional, we may see some redemption for taxpayers if some of the individual orders of NAA are struck down in the future. The biggest solace remains that NAA will not be issuing any new orders. That may remain the biggest win for taxpayers.       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amendments in any law, are par for the course. For tax law even more so. The frequency or no. of amendments sometimes do not tell the real story. Sometimes, a large no. of amendments indicate an instability in the law and tax policy. But often amendments do not reveal if the law was drafted properly in the first place necessitating frequent amendments. However, GST laws were drafted after marathon deliberations and discussions. Though the Parliamentary debates were woefully short and unproductive, the draft and model laws that were released to the public were continuously modified after feedback and comments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my view, the GST laws have not been frequently amended due to sub-par drafting but to incrementally align the statutory provisions with the Revenue Department\u2019s view. The expansion of the scope of power of provisional attachment, inclusion of all online games including games of skill within the scope of GST, nullifying the Supreme Court\u2019s view in Safari Retreats case, expanding scope of supply to nullify doctrine of mutuality \u2013 all point towards an obstinate Revenue Department insisting on paving its GST way as per its own desire. And the fact that some of the amendments have a retrospective effect does not augur well for tax certainty and predictability. The promise of no retrospective amendments in GST laws stands buried for now. Hopefully, it will resurrect soon and cure the imbalance in GST administration that currently is in favour of the Revenue Department, at the expense of taxpayer rights and convenience.           <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction  Goods and Services Tax (\u2018GST\u2019) came into force eight years ago on 1 July 2017. Eight long, eventful years that have been full of sound and fury. But, do they signify something? Yes and No. Yes, because GST, at times, operates like a tinkered version of State-VAT laws and not a transformative reform of … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1239","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-there-are-two-certainties-in-life-taxes-and-complaints-about-taxes"],"yoast_head":"\nGST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction  Goods and Services Tax (\u2018GST\u2019) came into force eight years ago on 1 July 2017. Eight long, eventful years that have been full of sound and fury. But, do they signify something? Yes and No. Yes, because GST, at times, operates like a tinkered version of State-VAT laws and not a transformative reform of ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-04T04:45:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239\",\"name\":\"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-04T04:45:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-04T04:45:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\",\"name\":\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"description\":\"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\",\"name\":\"Rav Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rav Singh\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","og_description":"Introduction  Goods and Services Tax (\u2018GST\u2019) came into force eight years ago on 1 July 2017. Eight long, eventful years that have been full of sound and fury. But, do they signify something? Yes and No. Yes, because GST, at times, operates like a tinkered version of State-VAT laws and not a transformative reform of ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239","og_site_name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","article_published_time":"2025-08-04T04:45:23+00:00","author":"Rav Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rav Singh","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239","name":"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-08-04T04:45:23+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-04T04:45:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1239#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"GST @8: A Journey Via Eight Amendments"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/","name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","description":"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917","name":"Rav Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rav Singh"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/"],"url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1239","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1239"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1239\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1240,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1239\/revisions\/1240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}