LEGAL MAXIMS

Latin maxims articulate the principled foundations on which the law is built. Each is a time-tested, ancient treasure of Roman law which not only embellish as much the common law as the civil law, but rightfully shape, mold and intellectually structure and ground lawyers, from their first day of law school to the last law journal they read in retirement..

1. ignorantia  facti  excusat

 Meaning of the above expression according to Black’s Law dictionary (9^th edition) is : “Ignorance of fact is an excuse”

According to the said dictionary, whatever is done under a mistaken impression of a material fact is excused or provides grounds for relief- this maxim refers to the principle that acts done and contracts made under mistake or ignorance of a material fact are voidable. 

2. ignorantia juris non excusat

2.1 Meaning of the above expression according to Black’s Law dictionary (9^th edition) is : “Lack of Knowledge about a legal requirement or prohibition is never a excuse to a criminal charge”

2.2   However, in a civil proceeding our Supreme Court in in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) held that :-

         

          “….there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement ; there is no such maxim known to the law”

2.3     In Wealth-tax officer v.S.P. Jayakumar [1983] 3 ITD 221 (Mad.),  the issue before the ITAT, Chennai Bench was that the assessee,  did not file wealth-tax returns for six years on the ground that he was not aware of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. When Government publicised the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in 1975 then he consulted a tax practitioner and  filed the returns voluntarily. The WTO levied penalty under section 18(1)(a) ( for non filing of returns). Before the authorities the assessee pleaded that ignorance of law was a reasonable cause.

The ITAT held in favour of the assessee as under-

“The maxim that ignorance of law is no excuse is, no doubt, a well known time honoured principle, but it appears to us that it has lost much of its relevance in the context of the present day legal system replete with complex legislation touching upon every aspect of life.

---  ---  ----

4. It may be remembered that this legal maxim originated at a time when the function of the State in most part was merely to govern the country, by maintaining law and order within the country, and protect it from external aggression and, as stated in Salmond’s Jurisprudence, the law in most instances was derived from and in harmony with the rules of natural justice, but in the modern days, as we have already stated, the law of a State govern almost every aspect of life of its citizens and it is well-nigh impossible for anyone to know all the statutory laws and every provision thereof. As a matter of fact, efficacy and justification of this principle that every one is presumed to know the law is doubted very much in the observations at page 396 of Salmond’s Jurisprudence where it is stated that it must be admitted, however, that while each of the reasons on which the principle is based is valid and weighty, they do not constitute altogether sufficient basis for so stringent and severe a rule and the theory that the law is knowable throughout by all to whom it con cerns is an ideal rather than a fact in any system as indefinite and mut- able, that in a complex legal system a man requires other guidance than that of common sense and a good conscience and the fact seems to be that the rule in question, while in general sound, does not in its full extent and uncompromising rigidity admit of any sufficient justification. It is further observed that certain exceptions to it are being developed, particularly in respect of the defence of ‘claim of right’ in criminal law.

5. In P.V. Devassy v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 502 (Ker.) this principle was also considered. We can do no better than reproduce an extract from the judgment

". . . Public policy requires that ignorance of law should be no excuse. But, there is no presumption that everybody knows the law, though it is often so stated.

‘Sometimes it is said that every man is presumed to know the law, but this is only a slovenly way of stating the truth that ignorance of the law is not in general an excuse.’ (See A First Book of Jurisprudence by Pollock, at page 163)

In Martindale v. Falkner [l846] 135 ER 1124,1130, Maule J. said:

"There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law ; it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so.’

In Criminal Law by Glanville Williams, at page 385, it is stated :

‘The view that every one is presumed to know the law is now generally rejected ; it is not a true proposition of law, and even if it were, it would only be a legal fiction, not a moral justification. Lord Mansfield Drily observed that it would be very hard upon the profession, if the law was so certain, that everybody knew it ; and Maule J. is credited with the observation that everybody is presumed to know the law except His Majesty’s judges, who have a Court of Appeal set over them to put them right. The idea that the law can be known by every one is to-day, in the planned and welfare State, more ludicrous than ever’ ". (p. 507)

6. That the tax laws of this country are complex and complicated and often require for compliance, therewith the assistance of tax practitioners specialising in this field, is a well known fact. It is equally well known fact that the legislation in this field undergoes so frequent changes and amendments that it is not possible for even a person specialising in this field, including the tax administrator, to claim that he knows what exactly the law is on a particular given day or period without making references to the history of the enactments. In such circumstances, it would be a travesty of truth and justice to hold that the assessee knew or ought to have known the correct law and comply therewith, even though, in fact, he was not aware of the provisions.”