Allahabad High Court Stays Compulsory Society Audit Order, Seeks Justification for ₹1,50,000 Plus GST Audit Fee Demand
Case Overview
Court: Allahabad High Court
Case Name: Gaur Grandeur Apartment Owners Association And 2 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
Writ Petition Number: WRIT - C No. 34788 of 2026
Date of Order: 02/09/2026
Presiding Judge: Justice Vinod Diwakar
Background of the Dispute
An apartment owners' association registered under the applicable societies legislation approached the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition, challenging a directive issued by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad. The impugned order, dated 30.07.2026, mandated that the accounts of Gaur Grandeur Apartment Owners Association be subjected to an audit covering the preceding four financial years, with the auditor to be drawn exclusively from a panel maintained by the office of the Deputy Registrar.
The association took strong exception to both the manner in which the audit direction had been issued and the financial implications that flowed from compliance with such a direction.
The Core Grievance: Financial Burden on the Society
Before the Court, Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and assisted by Shri H.P. Sahi and Shri Pratik J. Nagar, placed on record a specific and significant concern regarding the audit fee structure being applied in this case.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the auditor empanelled by the Deputy Registrar's office had raised a demand of ₹1,50,000/- plus GST towards audit charges — and this demand pertained to the audit of accounts for a single year alone. Given that the impugned order directed an audit covering four consecutive years, the cumulative financial exposure for the Society would be substantially multiplied, placing an additional and arguably disproportionate fiscal burden on its members.
The petitioner's counsel contended that such a financial imposition warranted judicial scrutiny, particularly because the Society had no say in the selection of the auditor and could not negotiate the fee structure, the auditor having been appointed from a panel controlled by the very authority whose direction was being challenged.