{"id":1496,"date":"2026-07-31T15:25:03","date_gmt":"2026-07-31T15:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496"},"modified":"2026-07-31T15:25:04","modified_gmt":"2026-07-31T15:25:04","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-section-162c-cgst-act-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

The Supreme Court in Bhandari Scrap Traders v Union of India & Ors<\/a> (\u2018Bhandari Scrap case\u2019) endorsed the Gujarat High Court\u2019s decision in Maruti Enterprise through its Authorised Partners v Union of India & Ors<\/a>(\u2018Maruti Enterprise case\u2019). The High Court, in Maruti Enterprise case, had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (\u2018CGST Act\u2019). The Supreme Court disapproved of the Tripura High Court\u2019s decision in Sahil Enterprises v Union of India & Ors<\/a> (\u2018Sahil Enterprises case\u2019) which had read down Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court\u2019s views are only a couple of pages long where it observes that the Gujarat High Court\u2019s analysis is correct. Thus, to understand why the Supreme Court concluded that Section 16(2)(c) is constitutional it is necessary to examine the Gujarat High Court\u2019s decision in full.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The taxpayer\u2019s challenge, in essence, is mostly led by purchasers who pay GST to sellers but are denied corresponding ITC. The reason for denial of ITC is Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 which states that no person shall be entitled to claim ITC unless: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government, either in cash or through utilisation of input tax credit admissible in respect of the said supply<\/em>;\u2019   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The effect of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 is that if sellers collect GST from purchasers but do not remit it to the State; purchasers cannot claim ITC on the said GST. Because Section 16(2)(c) makes purchasers dependent on sellers to successfully claim ITC, it creates self-policing mechanism. And creates an obligation on purchasers to monitor payment of GST by sellers. Purchasers have challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 in various High Courts with varied results. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tripura High Court in Sahil Enterprises case held that Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 places an onerous burden on a bona fide purchaser and held that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be extremely difficult for a purchasing dealer to ensure that the selling dealer deposits the GST collected from him with the Government<\/em>. (para 21)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tripura High Court reasoned that it was impossible for a purchaser to ensure that seller pays GST to the government, and it would amount to double taxation of the purchaser: who first pays GST to the seller and then is denied ITC on the GST paid to the seller.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gujarat High Court took a different view and relied on various other provisions of CGST Act, 2017 which alleviate the burden on purchaser. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The taxpayers\u2019 arguments assailing the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) were varied. To begin with, the taxpayers argued that denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser merely on the ground that the seller did not remit GST is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. And the Revenue and the Parliament failed to distinguish between bona fide purchasers and those who connived with non-paying sellers. Section 16(2)(c) by treating both purchasers alike subjects them to hostile discrimination. Further, the law cannot compel a purchaser to do something impossible. Section 16(2)(c) mandates a purchaser to do something impossible, i.e., control seller and their tax payments.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, the taxpayers relied on select decisions such as On Quest Merchandising India Pvt Ltd v Govt of NCT of Delhi<\/a> (\u2018Quest Merchandising case\u2019) where a similar condition was read down by the Delhi High Court but in the context of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. This was judgment was approved by the Supreme Court in Commissioner Trade and Tax Delhi v M\/S Shati Kiran<\/a> (\u2018Shanti Kiran case\u2019).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Revenue defended constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) by arguing that ITC is a concession and not a vested right. And ITC can only be claimed as per terms and conditions prescribed in the statute. Further, the Revenue argued that the condition prescribed in Section 16(2)(c) was unambiguous and taxpayers cannot challenge their constitutionality merely on grounds of hardship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Revenue also said that any attempt to rely on Quest Merchandising case is inaccurate as the provisions in CGST Act, 2017 are different and its design cannot be compared to pre-GST laws. Specifically, CGST Act, 2017 has Sections 41, 155, and Rule 37A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Gujarat High Court relied on these provisions to underline that Section 16(2)(c) is not onerous. A detailed comment on its observations on these provisions is below.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Overview of the Judgment <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gujarat High Court referred to various provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 to support its conclusion that Section 16(2)(c) and did not place an onerous burden on purchasers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 41(2) states that if a seller fails to remit GST to the Revenue Department, then the purchaser must reverse the ITC along with the applicable interest. The Proviso states that if the seller pays the tax, the purchaser can re-avail the reversed ITC.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rule 37A of CGST Rules, 2017 wherein a purchaser is allowed retain ITC if seller has not paid tax by September 30 of the following year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gujarat High Court held that a cumulative reading of Proviso to Section 41(2) and Rule 37A ensured that a purchaser is not unduly punished for a seller\u2019s failure to pay tax. Latter does not penalize a purchaser immediately while former ensures a purchaser can re-avail ITC once seller pay the tax.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, Section 53 mandates that tax component utilized by an inter-State supplier must be transferred to the destination state. Thus, if seller in originating state does not pay tax, but purchaser is allowed to claim ITC then the originating state will have to pay tax to destination state without having received it in the first place. Section 53 ensures that destination-based principle \u2013 on which GST is founded \u2013 is adhered to by way of inter-State tax transfers.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the above provisions were absent in VAT laws, the Gujarat High Court held that reliance on any decisions that were pronounced in context of VAT laws were not relevant to examine constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017. And accordingly the High Court observed that Quest Merchandising case is irrelevant to challenge of GST laws. The High Court observed that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 any “reading down” (narrow interpretation) of Section 16(2)(c) would trigger cascading fiscal consequences. The legal position under the former VAT regime was materially different, as input tax credit was confined within the originating state. In contrast, the GST regime is destination-based; therefore, input tax credit must operate seamlessly across state lines for inter-State supplies, requiring strict compliance to maintain fiscal balance<\/em>. (para 60)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gujarat High Court\u2019s above observations echoed similar observations made by the Kerala High Court in M Trade Links v Union of India<\/a> where it stated that due to the mandate of Section 53 of CGST Act, 2017 the entire GST will be unworkable if the condition under Section 16(2)(c) is missing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The unworkability of GST due to mandate of Section 53 is an inter-State issue centering on their tax collections and apportionment. The Revenue has enough arsenal including Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 to hold sellers accountable for failure to remit tax instead of blocking ITC of purchaser who has paid its share of tax to the seller. Unless there is prima facie evidence of collusion between the seller and purchaser, blocking ITC of purchasers by default under Section 16(2)(c) is a questionable policy choice. Section 16(2)(c), as taxpayers correctly argued, places burden of ensuring compliance by seller on purchaser. When ensuring payment of GST by seller should be the Revenue\u2019s job. And, using the difficulty in inter-State transfers as a justification is on thin ice since it hardly concerns taxpayers. To prevent the possibility of one State not receiving its share of GST in a timely fashion, all purchasers have been mandated to ensure that their sellers pay GST.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gujarat High Court though did not view Section 16(2)(c) as a provision that burdens purchasers. The High Court supported its conclusion that Section 16(2)(c) is constitutional by adding a few more reasons such as: purchaser being remediless against the supplier did not make Section 16(2)(c) ultra vires (para 64), private transaction between seller and purchaser cannot be taken into account by revenue (para 70), and Section 16(2)(a),(aa),(b), and (c) have to be read together and purchaser must ensure that the seller remits GST to the government (para 73). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court also, unhelpfully, added that if a purchaser discovers that a seller did not pay GST, it must not enter future transactions with the seller. And further suggested that:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u2026 a purchaser can ensure there is a clause that takes care of the lacuna and holds the supplier liable to indemnify the purchaser if the said purchasing dealer suffers a loss due to a default by the supplier to remit to the government the tax collected from the purchaser. Such clauses can be made part of the agreements covering such situations.<\/em> (para 76)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In totality, the Gujarat High Court instead of interpreting Section 16(2)(c) as an onerous burden on purchasers gave them suggestions as to how to best navigate their obligations. And asked purchasers to be careful of which sellers they enter transactions. And in doing so, added more factors for purchasers to consider apart from ensuring that sellers remit GST to the government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gujarat High Court bypassed a slightly tougher job of engaging with the Article 14 argument and whether Section 16(2)(c) fails to distinguish between bona fide purchasers and purchasers that collude with sellers. Instead, kept its narrow focus on design of the CGST Act, 2017.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 imposes an onerous obligation on purchasers to ensure that sellers discharge their GST obligations. The Gujarat High Court primarily relied on other provisions of CGST Act, 2017 to reason that Section 16(2)(c) is not onerous and if it is omitted then CGST Act, 2017 may become unworkable. The reasoning that CGST Act, 2017 may become unworkable is suspect and focuses on the administrative hurdles that States may face instead of emphasizing on taxpayer\u2019s rights. The High Court adopted a sub-par if not an erroneous way of adjudicating on constitutionality of a statutory provision. The Supreme Court, has endorsed it, leaving little room for taxpayers to challenge the heavy obligations imposed under Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017.       <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court in Bhandari Scrap Traders v Union of India & Ors (\u2018Bhandari Scrap case\u2019) endorsed the Gujarat High Court\u2019s decision in Maruti Enterprise through its Authorised Partners v Union of India & Ors(\u2018Maruti Enterprise case\u2019). The High Court, in Maruti Enterprise case, had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]<\/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":[146,12,40,31,94,32,389],"class_list":["post-1496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-there-are-two-certainties-in-life-taxes-and-complaints-about-taxes","tag-constitutionality","tag-gst","tag-gujarat-high-court","tag-itc","tag-ravpratapsingh","tag-supreme-court","tag-tripura-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 - 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=1496\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court in Bhandari Scrap Traders v Union of India & Ors (\u2018Bhandari Scrap case\u2019) endorsed the Gujarat High Court\u2019s decision in Maruti Enterprise through its Authorised Partners v Union of India & Ors(\u2018Maruti Enterprise case\u2019). The High Court, in Maruti Enterprise case, had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-31T15:25:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-31T15:25:04+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Rav Singh\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1ded6db9ab6793d2bfd57d3237c2e09e\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-31T15:25:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-31T15:25:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496\"},\"wordCount\":1770,\"keywords\":[\"Constitutionality\",\"GST\",\"Gujarat High Court\",\"ITC\",\"RavPratapSingh\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Tripura High Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Two Certainties\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-31T15:25:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-31T15:25:04+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1ded6db9ab6793d2bfd57d3237c2e09e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/?p=1496#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/theleagle.in\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017\"}]},{\"@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\\\/1ded6db9ab6793d2bfd57d3237c2e09e\",\"name\":\"Rav Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 - 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=1496","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","og_description":"The Supreme Court in Bhandari Scrap Traders v Union of India & Ors (\u2018Bhandari Scrap case\u2019) endorsed the Gujarat High Court\u2019s decision in Maruti Enterprise through its Authorised Partners v Union of India & Ors(\u2018Maruti Enterprise case\u2019). The High Court, in Maruti Enterprise case, had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]","og_url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496","og_site_name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","article_published_time":"2026-07-31T15:25:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-31T15:25:04+00:00","author":"Rav Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rav Singh","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496"},"author":{"name":"Rav Singh","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/1ded6db9ab6793d2bfd57d3237c2e09e"},"headline":"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017","datePublished":"2026-07-31T15:25:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-31T15:25:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496"},"wordCount":1770,"keywords":["Constitutionality","GST","Gujarat High Court","ITC","RavPratapSingh","Supreme Court","Tripura High Court"],"articleSection":["Two Certainties"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496","name":"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-31T15:25:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-31T15:25:04+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/1ded6db9ab6793d2bfd57d3237c2e09e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1496#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017"}]},{"@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\/1ded6db9ab6793d2bfd57d3237c2e09e","name":"Rav Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/1496","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=1496"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1496\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1497,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1496\/revisions\/1497"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}