HorecaHire
A restaurant delivery platform payout reconciliation sheet explains why the amount a food delivery aggregator deposits in a restaurant’s bank account may differ from the value of orders in the restaurant POS. Fees, platform-funded versus restaurant-funded promotions, genuine refunds, canceled orders, applicable taxes and payment timing need separate, documented treatment. This original HoReCaHire food delivery settlement SOP includes a worked Indian-rupee example, a daily order matching register and a dispute process for restaurant owners.
Order value, restaurant revenue and payout are different
| Concept | Meaning | Common error |
|---|---|---|
| Customer order value | Total defined customer bill including relevant components | Assuming it is all restaurant revenue |
| Restaurant share of promotions | Discount economically borne by restaurant | Confusing platform subsidy with restaurant cost |
| Platform service/commission fee | Contractual charge based on valid defined base | Assuming one rate across every supplier |
| Refunds and adjustments | Actual supported return, compensation or cancellation | Deducting the same refund twice |
| Net remittance | Bank settlement after applicable adjustments | Calling it the POS sales total |
| GST/accounting classification | Tax treatments verified by actual professional and current rules | Assuming all orders fall under identical tax liability |
India’s GST Council lists CBIC Circular 167/23/2021-GST on restaurant services supplied through e-commerce operators. Such rules address which party is liable for specified GST; other items, business arrangements and updated tax procedures may differ. This article is about transaction reconciliation, not determining a restaurant’s tax liability. A qualified Indian GST accountant should validate the current treatment of each transaction type.
Nine-step food delivery payout reconciliation SOP
- Retrieve the genuine platform statement and settlement period from the authorized merchant portal.
- Export restaurant POS order IDs for the corresponding order and fulfillment periods.
- Match unique order references, correct gross/eligible amount and actual statuses.
- Distinguish aggregator-funded incentives from discounts borne by the restaurant.
- Calculate or verify the contractual commission and any separate legitimate platform charges.
- Reconcile real refunds, cancellations, disputes, service fees and permitted tax treatment separately.
- Tie statement net payable to the specific verified bank deposits and settlement dates.
- Open a supplier dispute with precise transaction evidence for unsupported differences.
- Document credit adjustments, successful bank settlement and management sign-off without rewriting historical orders.
Copy-ready restaurant payout reconciliation register
| Field | Evidence required |
|---|---|
| Delivery channel and account | [Authorized aggregator/restaurant ID] |
| Settlement/reporting period | [Exact dates, currency and export version] |
| Platform order ID / POS ID | [Genuine matched identifiers] |
| Order amount and tax basis | [Approved comparable amounts] |
| Order status | [Delivered/canceled/refunded with actual evidence] |
| Restaurant-funded discount | [Actual promotion contract] |
| Platform-funded subsidy | [True credited commercial benefit] |
| Commission and other fees | [Verified agreement and individual line items] |
| Tax/settlement item | [Properly classified by Finance] |
| Expected payout | [Correct reconstructed sum] |
| Actual bank deposit | [Matched bank reference and settlement date] |
| Unresolved variance | [Amount, responsible owner and dispute ticket] |
Worked delivery statement calculation
Imagine a fictional settlement with a reconciled ₹50,000 comparable starting sales/settlement base, ₹5,000 restaurant-funded discounts, ₹8,000 valid aggregate platform fees and ₹2,000 genuine refunds/adjustments. Assume for this arithmetic illustration that no further taxes, offsets, platform-funded promotions, bank holds or carryovers affect these lines. Expected payout = ₹50,000 − ₹5,000 − ₹8,000 − ₹2,000 = ₹35,000. The example defines the base expressly so it must not be copied into an actual GST return or supplier contract.
| Illustrative settlement line | Amount | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Starting comparable order base | ₹50,000 | Reconciliation base only |
| Restaurant-funded promotions | −₹5,000 | Only genuinely restaurant-borne |
| Valid platform charges | −₹8,000 | Contract-specific |
| Legitimate refund/adjustments | −₹2,000 | Avoid duplicate deduction |
| Expected simplified payout | ₹35,000 | Before any excluded real components |
Bank payout timing can create apparent variances
A delivery made on 30 September may settle in October. A restaurant comparing every September POS sale with all September bank credits can therefore report an artificial gap. Reconcile orders by the supplier’s settlement cutoff and map each statement to its actual bank transfer. A pending or withheld amount is not automatically theft or a supplier error; investigate documented contractual holds and refunds.
Promotions: who actually paid for the discount?
| Scenario | Restaurant accounting question |
|---|---|
| Restaurant offers ₹100 off | Is the full discount funded by the restaurant under actual terms? |
| Aggregator-funded campaign | Did the platform reimburse the agreed amount in payout? |
| Shared promotional offer | What legitimate portion belongs to each party? |
| Customer coupon plus refund | Is any credited incentive being reversed lawfully? |
| Canceled order | Who is contractually responsible for food preparation or cancellation fees? |
When the actual payout differs by ₹300
If the bank receives ₹34,700 against a genuinely matched ₹35,000 expected settlement, the unresolved difference is ₹300. Check whether the platform statement includes a separate correct fee, a prior-period adjustment, withheld deposit, tax component or correction not included in the simplified calculation. The restaurant should open an evidence-backed dispute only after reconciling the right report and period.
What to download and retain
- Original transaction-level platform settlement export.
- True restaurant POS orders and status changes.
- Current platform contract, fee terms and promotion allocations.
- Bank statements identifying actual settlement credits.
- Valid refund/chargeback evidence and support ticket history.
- Approved supplier credit/debit notes and financial close records.
- Any confidential customer information only in the restricted system, not a public spreadsheet.
Restaurant aggregator exception matrix
| Discrepancy | Possible reason | Responsible check |
|---|---|---|
| Order missing in POS | Channel integration issue | Manager and systems support |
| Delivered marked canceled | Late platform status change or error | Store lead with platform evidence |
| Commission unexpectedly high | New plan, additional fee or wrong commission base | Finance and contract owner |
| Bank deposit missing | Settlement not yet due or bank details problem | Finance and secure provider support |
| Refund appears twice | Duplicate adjustment or periods misaligned | Finance and merchant case owner |
| GST line unclear | Tax classification or mixed supply difference | Qualified tax specialist |
Monthly restaurant delivery finance review
Use order-level reconciliation first, then compare verified revenues, platform marketing charges, actual food costs, legitimate refunds and payout delays. Net bank deposit is a cash-flow figure, not by itself the restaurant’s gross revenue or profit. A merchant discount could raise unit demand yet reduce contribution; assess it with the actual menu margin and delivery fulfillment cost rather than only a top-line order count.
Training exercise for outlet managers
Provide ten fabricated platform orders. Two have genuine restaurant-funded offers, one is validly canceled, and another includes an aggregator-funded promotion. Staff should map orders to one settlement period, use the correct contract to classify each discount, and distinguish an actual payout difference from an expected future bank credit. The correct answer is not to force every POS sale to equal one bank deposit.
Common reconciliation errors
- Treating every customer discount as paid by the restaurant.
- Deducting a refund at POS and again from the same normalized base.
- Applying a generic platform commission rate without reading the agreement.
- Including tips, tax or delivery charges in restaurant revenue without verifying actual entitlement.
- Merging different payout weeks into one month without reconciliation.
- Changing supplier bank details in response to an unverified message.
- Treating 9(5) GST as a blanket rule for every mixed platform supply.
Related HoReCaHire restaurant guides
Read Restaurant Manager financial duties, F&B Director KPIs, Executive Chef food-cost controls, kitchen staff tasks, staff control records and recruit restaurant managers.
FAQs
Is the aggregator bank payout equal to restaurant sales? Not necessarily; discounts, platform fees, adjustments, taxes and timing differ. Should each order be matched? A controlled order-level comparison is valuable for resolving discrepancies. Who handles current GST obligations? Your authorized GST advisor under up-to-date rules. What if the bank transfer comes next month? Match it to the appropriate platform settlement period.
Source: GST Council/CBIC Circular 167/23/2021 and general transaction reconciliation principles. All settlement values, discounts and payout examples are original fictional HoReCaHire arithmetic and do not establish current platform fee, tax or liability conditions.
