invoice INV-8444 · seen 2026-09-09
| Payments captured, gross | 2,219.00 |
| processor fee | (51.60) |
| tax on the fee | (7.11) |
| Should have landed | 2,160.29 |
| Actually landed | 2,160.29 |
| Unexplained | 0.00 |
The credit ties out.
| Ledger expects, gross | 2,479.00 |
| Customer paid, gross | 2,219.00 |
| Kept back | 260.00 |
The customer withheld part of the invoice.
Two comparisons, kept apart on purpose. The bank credit is net of the processor’s fee; the invoice is gross. A single “matches” line would hide which side is short.
Shown ahead of the proposal so you can judge whether these cases really are alike, before knowing what was concluded from them.
Seen before. A single captured card or UPI payment, one open ledger invoice for the same order, and one bank credit a day or two later. The credit is smaller than the invoice by a few hundred paise and the gap equals the payment processor's fee plus GST on that fee.
Done then. This is a clean match, not a shortfall. Compare the bank credit against the payment amount net of fee and tax, and compare the ledger's expected amount against the payment gross. Both must hold. Do not compare the bank credit to the invoice directly — that comparison fails on every correctly settled payment.
Seen before. Two ledger entries under one order reference, and a bank credit that equals their combined value net of the processor's fee on the single payment behind it.
Done then. Net at the payment level, not per invoice. There was one payment, so there is one fee, and it must be deducted once from the combined invoice total. Deducting a fee against each invoice separately overstates the deduction and leaves a residue equal to one fee.
Seen before. A customer who has withheld tax on every invoice for several periods sends another payment short by the same proportion.
Done then. A consistent per-customer withholding history raises confidence but does not remove the arithmetic check. Verify the reconstruction against this invoice every time. History justifies acting without human review; it never justifies skipping the computation.
advance adjusted
Confidence 0.91 · arithmetic checked
The payments settle to INR 2,160.29 once each one's own processor fee and tax are deducted, against INR 2,160.29 that reached the bank. The ledger expects INR 2,479.00 gross while the customer paid INR 2,219.00, leaving INR 260.00 held back.
Confirming writes this into the corpus. It will be found and cited on future cases that look like this one, so a confirmation that is wrong does not cost one record — it becomes something the system reasons from. Decide on the figures and the precedents above, not on the verdict.