The gloss refers to the possibility of audits of municipal commercial law companies by audit committees. Commercial law companies whose sole owner is a municipality are entities of a special nature, since the primary purpose of their establishment (creation) is to carry out specific tasks of the municipality, as opposed to generating profit. Therefore, with respect to these companies, the provisions of the Act on municipal-level local government are not specific in relation to the provisions of the Commercial Companies Code. This does not justify audit powers of municipal councils over such companies. Companies whose sole owner is a municipality undoubtedly do not fall within the definition of “municipal organizational units,” as they have a legal personality that is separate from the municipality or commune. The court also forgot that the use of conclusions from the weaker to the stronger and of analogy is not acceptable, because Art. 18a of the Act on municipal-level self-government concerns the powers of audit committees and Art. 24(2) refers to the powers of a single councilor. At this point in time, it is not acceptable to apply the so-called a minori ad maius inference and to assume the position that if a single councilor can conduct an audit, then it is all the more true that an audit can be conducted by a municipal council through an audit committee. Such actions would also be contrary to the principle of legalism expressed in Article 7 of the Polish Constitution. Keywords: audit committee, municipal council, municipal companies, audit, audit powers