Question

PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of law excuses no one.

FACTS: 'X' fails to file his income-tax returns for a considerable number of years. The Income Tax department serves upon him a 'show-cause notice' as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

• A. X may defend himself by taking the plea that his legal advisor had not advised him to file the return.
• B. X would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is not legal ground of defence.
• C. X may defend himself successfully by taking the plea that he was unaware of any such a law being in force.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

The correct option is B X would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is not legal ground of defence.

The above case is based on the doctrine called Ignorantia juris non excusat, a Latin doctrine, which means ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.