Question

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Ignorance of law excuses on 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?

पर्याय

• 'X' may defend himself by taking the plea that his legal advisor had not advised him to file the return

• 'X' would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is no legal ground of defense

• 'X' may defend himself successfully by taking the plea that he was unaware of any such law being in force

• None of the above

Answer 1

'X' would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is no legal ground of defense

Explanation:

According to "Ignorantia Juris non-excusat" a Latin maxim meaning ignorance of law is not an excuse to a criminal charge. The maxim, ignorant Juris nonexcusat is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence.  
In the given scenario, X will have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is no legal ground of defense.