One system for the online store, the shop counter and the partners' books
What they were up against
An attar and fine-fragrance business selling across India online and from its own shop. Selling in both places means one stock count, one set of orders and one set of books for the partners — not a storefront that knows nothing about the counter.
What we shipped
One codebase serving the public store, customer accounts with Google sign-in, Razorpay prepaid checkout, an in-shop tablet mode for counter sales, and a back office for orders, stock, blend recipes, GST receipts and each partner's profit share. Courier booking is built in, with delivery PIN codes checked against India Post.
What went wrong, and what we did
Courier booking had a race. Two near-simultaneous requests for the same order could both book a shipment, and if saving the booking failed after the courier had already accepted it, the airway-bill number was folded into a generic error — a parcel existing at the carrier with no record of it here. It shipped with that gap; a database rule now allows one live shipment per order, and that failure is reported loudly with the AWB so staff can reconcile it.
What was asked for, and what was done
What actually shipped.
- A storefront with search, collections and stock-aware listings — a sold-out bottle cannot be ordered.
- Razorpay prepaid checkout, and reminders for payments that were started and abandoned.
- An in-shop tablet mode, so a counter sale and an online order come out of the same stock.
- A back office for orders, stock, blend recipes with reorder levels, and the partners' profit share.
- GST on the receipt, and courier booking with PIN codes verified against India Post.
What keeps it safe.
- No passwords anywhere: customers and staff both sign in with Google, and changing a staff member's role signs them out everywhere.
- Courier webhooks are verified, applied once, and always acknowledged.
How perfumexmarket.in scores
Measured on 16 Oct 2026 with Lighthouse 12.8.2, the engine behind Google's PageSpeed Insights: three runs on mobile and three on desktop. This is a lab test rather than data from real visitors, so treat it as a dated snapshot, and run it yourself if you want a second opinion.
Mobile
- Performance
- 82
- Accessibility
- 100
- Best practices
- 71
- SEO
- 100
Performance ranged 71–86 across 3 runs; the median run is shown.
Desktop
- Performance
- 99
- Accessibility
- 100
- Best practices
- 74
- SEO
- 100
Performance scored 99 on all 3 runs.
| Measure | Mobile | Desktop |
|---|---|---|
| First Contentful Paint | 2.0 s | 0.5 s |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 3.8 s | 0.8 s |
| Total Blocking Time | 260 ms | 0 ms |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 0 | 0 |
| Speed Index | 2.8 s | 0.8 s |
Checks that still fail (mobile)
- Accessibility: all 27 pass
- Best practices: 4 of 14 fail — Document doesn't use legible font sizes
- SEO: all 10 pass
Talk to the founder, today.
WhatsApp, or leave a number and get a call back — usually the same day. No forms about budget, no sales team.