Purchase Order Return Inventory Issue


I have posted an packing slip with -1 quantity because we are returning 1 quantity to vendor. In Purchase Order I have changed the Warehouse (WH1) and Location (L1) and posted the packing slip. Once I posted then I noticed quantity is deducted from another warehouse (WH2) not from where (WH1) I have posted -1 quantity. I have checked in Inquiries Purchase Order - Packing Slip- this still shows as Warehouse (WH1). But in the Item-Transactions- Warehouse shows as WH2. I dont what happened. I tried the same thing in test environment too. In test also I am facing same issue. Please give your valuable suggestions.

Thanks in advance!!


Are you creating a new line? Are you putting it in deliver now? What point are you altering the dimensions? Original WHS was 2? Batch or Serial items? Return lot being specified?

We came across an issue while doing return an item to vendor. Here the story,

Received an item (1001) from vendor (Test) in Warehouse 1 for PO-100. This is not yet invoiced.

Transferred the item (1001) from Warehouse 1 to Warehouse 2.

Returned the item (1001) to vendor (Test) from Warehouse 2 by changing warehouse and location in purchase order line and changes the receive now to -1 and posted the packing slip.


When I look at the inquiries for this purchase order packing slip warehouse is fine. But when I look at the item transactions it went out from Warehouse 1 instead of Warehouse 2.

If we add a new line with -1 quantity for item (1001), Warehouse 2 in the same purchase order then we post the packing slip it works fine.

Answer to your question:

No using the same line just changed the warehouse and location. No, in Receive Now. Changing the warehouse because it received in one warehouse and returning from another warehouse. No batch or serial item. What is return lot?

it reverses the lot transaction I believe when you receive a negative amount, this is really used as a corrective tool, altering the warehouse on the line has no impact because you are reversing the original transaction. I recommend you get a developer to look at it to confirm my logic, but the data seems to bear it out.

Thanks… I will check with my developer…