EDI and ANAF e-invoicing — one flow for retail and tax compliance
In short: Since 2024, every B2B invoice in Romania must be reported to the tax authority ANAF in UBL 2.1 format (the e-invoicing mandate, known locally as e-Factura). Companies that already send EDIFACT INVOIC to retailers can generate ANAF e-invoicing output from that same flow. EDIconnect issues both formats from a single ERP export: EDIFACT INVOIC to the retailer, signed UBL 2.1 to ANAF.
Key capabilities
- e-Invoicing from the same ERP export: One ERP export produces EDIFACT INVOIC for the retailer and UBL 2.1 for ANAF. Zero double data entry.
- Automatic ANAF signing: Qualified electronic signature applied automatically, pre-submission validation, and automatic retry if the ANAF platform is unavailable.
- ANAF status reconciliation: A dashboard showing every invoice's status at ANAF (submitted, validated, rejected) with automatic correction where possible.
- Full compliance: UBL 2.1 built to Romania's RO_CIUS specification, updated with every ANAF change, with no work required on your side.
- 10-year archive: Invoices archived with encryption, available for tax audits, exportable as XML at any time.
- e-Transport included: e-Transport notifications for sensitive goods movements are integrated into the same flow.
Why it pays to integrate EDI and ANAF e-invoicing in one platform
Many Romanian companies rolled out ANAF's e-invoicing mandate as a separate process, with manual upload to the ANAF portal or a thin ERP-to-ANAF integration bolted on afterward. The result: the invoice goes to the retailer via EDI, then someone else uploads it to ANAF separately, creating a real risk of discrepancies — a different invoice number, a differently rounded amount.
With EDI and e-invoicing running through a single flow, the same invoice is sent simultaneously to the retailer (EDIFACT INVOIC) and to ANAF (UBL 2.1). Zero discrepancies, zero duplicated work, zero risk of a fine for an unreported invoice.
Frequently asked questions
How is EDI related to ANAF e-invoicing?
ANAF's e-invoicing mandate is itself a form of EDI: the electronic transmission of structured invoices in UBL 2.1 format to a third party (the tax authority). Companies already running EDI with their retailers (EDIFACT INVOIC) can generate ANAF e-invoicing output (UBL 2.1) from the same ERP trigger, with no extra effort.
Do I need two separate platforms — one for retail EDI, one for ANAF e-invoicing?
No. A modern EDI platform like EDIconnect generates both formats from the same ERP export. Setup includes both the retailers' EDI templates and the RO_CIUS UBL 2.1 template for ANAF. One contract, one flow, one dashboard.
What happens if ANAF rejects the invoice?
The platform detects the rejection automatically, records the reason (ANAF error code and description) and surfaces it in an exception queue. Common causes include an invalid tax ID, incorrect country codes, or negative amounts in disallowed fields. The platform auto-corrects most known-rule issues and resubmits; the rest are routed for manual review.
Is B2G e-invoicing (to public institutions) different?
B2G e-invoicing also uses UBL 2.1 but is delivered via the PEPPOL network rather than directly to ANAF. EDI platforms also support PEPPOL — sending to public institutions across the EU and Romania in the same flow, through a certified PEPPOL Access Point.
What is the difference between EDIFACT INVOIC and ANAF's UBL invoice?
EDIFACT INVOIC is the commercial invoice sent to the retailer, used to automate the retailer's accounts-payable process. UBL 2.1 is the fiscal invoice sent to ANAF, used for VAT reporting and tax audits. A Romanian supplier issues both — INVOIC to the retailer, UBL to ANAF — from the same ERP export.