Mutabiq checks Saudi ZATCA Phase 2 e-invoice XML before you submit it: pre-validation against published ZATCA requirements, not an approval by the authority. This page explains one rule, BR-Z-06.
Five checks a month on the Free plan. The file is checked in memory and is never stored.
The message ZATCA prints
[BR-Z-06]-In a Document level allowance (BG-20) where the Document level allowance VAT category code (BT-95) is "Zero rated" the Document level allowance VAT rate (BT-96) shall be 0 (zero).
What Mutabiq reports
One entry for each way this rule can be reported.
Reported as
What kind of value was found — empty, not_15_digits and the like — never the value itself.
Zero-rated allowance carries no VAT rate
Reported asrate_missingthe rate is missing
What is wrong
A cac:AllowanceCharge whose cac:TaxCategory is coded Z - zero-rated - under the VAT tax scheme carries no cbc:Percent element. EN 16931 rule BR-Z-06, which ZATCA runs, requires the VAT rate on a zero-rated allowance (BT-96) to be zero, and it tests that by comparing the element's value against nought. An absent element is an empty sequence and the comparison against it is false, so leaving the rate out fails the rule exactly as a wrong rate would. The expression matches an allowance at any depth, so one written inside an invoice line or inside a price is judged by it too.
What to check in your ERP
The rate belongs in cac:AllowanceCharge/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:Percent and must be written as zero rather than omitted. The usual cause is an export template that emits cbc:Percent only when the value is not nought, so the taxed discounts carry a rate and the untaxed ones do not. Fix the template to write the element unconditionally, and check that the discount record itself holds a numeric zero rather than an empty rate field.
Zero-rated allowance carries a VAT rate that is not zero
Reported asrate_not_zerothe rate is not zero
What is wrong
A cac:AllowanceCharge whose cac:TaxCategory is coded Z - zero-rated - under the VAT tax scheme carries a cbc:Percent that is not zero. EN 16931 rule BR-Z-06, which ZATCA runs, requires the rate on a zero-rated allowance (BT-96) to be zero. The category code and the rate in the same block contradict each other; a discount taxed at a rate belongs in the standard-rated category (S) instead.
What to check in your ERP
Decide which of the two is right before editing either. A discount against a zero-rated supply is itself zero-rated and the rate must follow the category to nought; a discount against a taxed supply keeps the rate and the category has to change. The frequent cause is a discount whose category is copied from the line it applies to while its rate is taken from a document-level default, so the two are read from different places and drift apart on any invoice that mixes categories.
The clause that runs
Quoted from the validation-rule stylesheet ZATCA publishes, at the file and line named below. The executed guard is what the check runs; the reported test is what it prints when it fails, and the two are not always the same.
As shipped in ZATCA SDK 3.4.8: the copy quoted here is, byte for byte, the file that release ships. The date in the file name is the name ZATCA gives the file; the rules in it are those of SDK 3.4.8.
A worked example
A synthetic document from the measured test corpus that trips this rule, shown where it differs from one that passed. Mutabiq's report names the class of the value, never the value itself.