Hi, many of our customers have received an email from ZATCA saying “We would like to point out that it has been noticed that you have used an incorrect ID in the invoices shared through the platform”.
Is this a general guideline? because our customers are giving correct CR number on the Supplier XML tags.
I think the notice related to Invoice id (number), not customer ID
Hi @Embro , The complete email from ZATCA is below:
"We kindly ask you to review the correct procedure regarding the item (Adding the Commercial Registration Identifier) to ensure compliance with it and avoid any violations of the electronic invoicing regulations. The procedure is as follows:
When selecting the Commercial Registration Identifier, and in the presence of multiple commercial registrations, the supplier must enter the commercial registration of the branch from which the tax invoice is issued.
For more details, please visit the link below, specifically page 30 of the guide related to the controls, requirements, technical specifications, and procedural rules necessary for implementing the provisions of the electronic invoicing regulation."
Page 30 speaks about the Supplier Other ID (which is CRN).
@Mirshad this email is sent when ZATCA teams observe incorrect CR numbers or when taxpayer is not sharing invoices pertaining to all their active CRs.
Requesting your assistance @Ankit_Tiwari
@Ankit_Tiwari is this an automated email? Because some of our customers do not have any invoices for a particular CR but the CR might be active.
@Mirshad no it is not an automated email. If taxpayer has an active CR but does not issue any invoices from that CR, such taxpayer can reply to the email providing reason as to why a particular branch is not issue invoices while it has an active CR
@Ankit_Tiwari I am facing the same problem although the commercial registration number in the xml file matches the same branch CRN and I received the same email from the team
@MGawad there must be some additional CRs which are active but not referred in any of invoices under “Other Seller ID (BT-29) field”.
@Ankit_Tiwari Want to confirm one thing if you are talking about Active CR. You mean to say Number of Devices On-Boarded for ZATCA Integration right ?
@Roohul-Amin-Seidor its not about number of devices onboarded. You may have 1 centralized billing solution wherein you onboard only 1 CSID but when this centralized billing solution generates invoices for different branches then the field “Other Seller ID(BT-29)” should contain CR of the branch for which invoice is generated.
@Ankit_Tiwari
This is what i get from your reply. correct me if I am wrong.
if X Company has for example 3 different branches, A,B,C and from Branch A when we are issuing a invoice for Branch B, We need to put CR for Branch A or Branch B in “BT-29” ? Please confirm.
If this company has 3 branches A,B,C and let us say they all use one device to generate invoices (1 CSID). Then each invoice should have respective branch’s CR in the field “Other Seller ID (BT-29)”. So Invoices pertaining to Branch A will have CR of Branch A in BT-29. Invoices pertaining to Branch B will have CR of Branch B in BT-29…
If all is Issued from Branch (A) location … which postal address to be included Postal address for the current location issing the invoice (A) for all invoices
or AS PER CR …postal address (AS branch A, B and C)
CR and Address both will be for respective branches for which invoice is issued. Invoices pertaining to Branch A will have CR of Branch A and Address of Branch A. Same way, Invoices pertaining to Branch B will have CR of Branch B and Address of Branch B…
@Ankit_Tiwari When checked with the RM they have mentioned that there is a Main CR for example: 10102XXX54 and it has different ID numbers like 10105XXX01, 40305XXX36, 2050XXX860. So, do we need to mark these ID numbers instead of the main CR inside the XML?
@Mirshad yes correct, the Other Seller ID should contain ID of the Branch it could be the Sub-CR (of that Branch) or any other license ID of that branch if sub-CR is not available for any reason
Hello, We are facing the same issue as the main topic .
However , we put the CR field in the (CR ID scheme) not the “Other Seller ID”.
And only one CR is used , so we have to fix this issue.
Correct me if my understanding is false, When we have multiple CRs IDs , when we use the main CR we put it as (CR ID) field , but when we use a sub CR we put it as
“Other Seller ID”. right ?
Thanks
@majds there is no field called CR ID scheme. Can you please recheck the Term ID of field you are referring in the data dictionary. You may be referring to same field "Other Seller ID (BT-29) with a different name. UBL tag for this field is cac:AccountingSupplierParty / cac:Party / cac:PartyIdentification / cbc:ID. where attribute schemeID is according to the description.
You can provide only 1 CR (either main or sub-CR), if invoice pertains to a specific branch then only Sub-CR of that specific branch should be included in this field.
@Ankit_Tiwari cac:AccountingSupplierParty
cac:Party
cac:PartyIdentification
<cbc:ID schemeID=“CRN”>402020112</cbc:ID>
</cac:PartyIdentification>
this is schemaID=“CRN” and its value is CRN for the branch and invoice was issued from this branch
and i received same Email
Please I want to know what is the problem?