Search options (Page 9 of 26)

Ok now if Invoice is digested for the time being lets discuss Purchases.

Practically and Logically if a Manufacturer (ABC) sells a Candy to a Non Registered Retailer (Xehroz) @ Rs. 70 then then invoice shall reflect as below

Inventory                  70
       GRN Account                      70

GRN Account            70
17% Tax                  11.9
3%   AT                    2.1
2%   ET                    1.4
            Payable                          85.40

But What I am understanding that even the ABC Supplier is Invoicing at 70, but he is applying All Taxes on MRP i.e. 100. Is that Right? as below

Inventory                  70
       GRN Account                      70

GRN Account            70
17% Tax                  17
3%   AT                    3
2%   ET                    2
            Payable                          92

IN that case wouldn't your Input Tax will always be Equal to Output Tax? If true, then is it necessary to do all this accounting of Taxes as Retailer? Simply you can record all your purchases @ 92 and record all your sales @ 122 and your Rs. 30 Profit will be there and you have no Tax Liabilities. Any way I raised this point just to understand your need to Record all taxes.

Now lets come to your problem. If any way you need to record all Purchase Taxes on MRP then we will have to modify FA Purchases to link it to the MRP. MRP can be defined as a Sales Type Retail in FA and can be used for calculating Tax Purchases.

It will have no Adverse impact on Input and Output Tax working. It will show something like THIS

Yes, this is achievable if the Price Before Tax is set to 100 PKR and Resulting Net Price to the Buyer is calculated as a discount say 15% of MRP = 85 PKR.

A little modification in the Invoice Write() function to link the Tax Calculations to MRP instead of Resulting Net Price can achieve this.

Question # 1: Are we trying to setup this Tax System for the Manufacturer or Distributor or Retailer? I am assuming we are doing this for Manufacturer.

Understanding # 1: MRP = 100 and all Taxes are being applied on MRP on each intermediary selling steps (irrespective of the selling price at each step ** ) till it reach End Consumer. Right?

** for e.g. This Candy's Manufactured Cost could be 70. It was the sold to the Retailer at 90 but the taxes are applied keeping MRP as a base.

Objection # 1: If Manufacturer is selling at 90+17+2 then 90 Can be the Purchase Price of Retailer but it can't be the COGS for Manufacturer. The COGS can be 70 as mentioned above.

This situation is similar accept the Retailer is Unregistered so he is penalized extra 3%. This 3% is an Output Tax for Manufacturer but Not an Input Tax for the Retailer.

Extra Tax 2% is related directly to the Item Type not the Buyer Type.

Let us first digest the Sales Side then we will discuss the procurement side.

Comment: Normally in Distribution Setup Where MRP is always the Base, the Selling Price to Retailer is also defined as a discounted MRP price. But you didn't mentioned that. If this is possible then it will be much easier to implement this within the current Tax System of FA with small modification.

You didn't mentioned the Fixed Value Rate handling mentioned in This Doc

I have create an online sheet. Please check Click Here

Hello @xehroz, I have implemented FA in more than 50 companies in Pakistan. You can send me email or call me to discuss your issue. Once settled we will post here so that others can be benefitted.

@Braath, you are right. I think this shall be addressed in the next major release.

I am also being reported by one of my client and conditions are same as above.

This edit session has been abandoned by opening sales document in another browser tab. You cannot edit more than one sales document at once."

But the problem is that this doesn't always occur so I am still unable to find the reason

On Fresh Installation

Version 1

[Section353280] => 1
    [Area353380] => 1
    [Area353381] => 1
    [Area353382] => 1
    [Area353383] => 1
    [Area353384] => 1
    [Area353385] => 1
    [Area353386] => 1
    [Area353387] => 1
    [Area353388] => 1
    [Area353389] => 1
    [Area353390] => 1
    [Area353391] => 1
    [Area353392] => 1
    [Area353393] => 1
    [Area353394] => 1
    [Area353365] => 1
    

Version2

[Section418816] => 1
    [Area418916] => 1
    [Area418917] => 1
    [Area418918] => 1
    [Area418919] => 1
    [Area418920] => 1
    [Area418921] => 1
    [Area418922] => 1
    [Area418923] => 1
    [Area418924] => 1
    [Area418925] => 1
    [Area418926] => 1
    [Area418927] => 1
    [Area418928] => 1
    [Area418929] => 1
    [Area418930] => 1
    [Area418931] => 1
    

@poncho1234 YOu can take any module and rename it and install it. The Section and Area Codes will be different.

My Problem is to copy the Section and Area Settings from Version 1 to Version 2.

My hooks.php is almost the same except below

Version 1

define ('SS_CLEARINGINVOICE', 105<<8);

Version2

define ('SS_CLEARINGINVOICEv2', 105<<8);

But the resulting Section and Area Numbers are different

Version1

[Section5006336] => 1
    [Area5006436] => 1
    [Area5006437] => 1
    [Area5006438] => 1
    [Area5006439] => 1
    [Area5006440] => 1
    [Area5006441] => 1
    [Area5006442] => 1
    [Area5006443] => 1
    [Area5006444] => 1
    [Area5006445] => 1
    [Area5006446] => 1
    [Area5006447] => 1
    [Area5006448] => 1
    [Area5006449] => 1
    [Area5006450] => 1
    [Area5006451] => 1

Version2

[Section6054912] => 1
    [Area6055012] => 1
    [Area6055013] => 1
    [Area6055014] => 1
    [Area6055015] => 1
    [Area6055016] => 1
    [Area6055017] => 1
    [Area6055018] => 1
    [Area6055019] => 1
    [Area6055020] => 1
    [Area6055021] => 1
    [Area6055022] => 1
    [Area6055023] => 1
    [Area6055024] => 1
    [Area6055025] => 1
    [Area6055026] => 1
    [Area6055027] => 1

I am trying to understand that which factor is bringing this difference in code of both Versions.

My First version is installed on 76th Position and New Version is installed in 92nd Position in installed_extensions.php.

@apmuthu, Can you help me to understand the logic. Its bit tricky using bitwise operators.

What is the repository link of 2.5?

on Line # 479 I modified the code as below

$ref = $Refs->get_next($_SESSION['Items']->trans_type, null, array('date' => Today(), 'customer'=>$_SESSION['Items']->customer_id));

On Line # 673 modified the code as below

$doc->reference = $Refs->get_next($doc->trans_type, null, array('date' => Today(), 'customer'=>$doc->customer_id));

On sales/includes/ui/sales_order_ui.inc Line # 273 I added the code as below

$_POST['ref'] =  $Refs->get_next($doc->trans_type, null, array('date' => Today(), 'customer'=>get_post('customer_id'));

I got the desired result.

Another Bug is that if in Bank Payment or Deposit nothing is defined in Miscellaneous Box then it shows like Customer [000] as shown in image below

http://prnt.sc/onfghz