ORDER S. R. NAYAK, J. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and carries on business in groundnuts. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the circular dated November 18, 1995 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chittoor Division, Chittoor, third respondent herein. The impugned circular, dated November 18, 1995 reads - "COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT Sri D. Yesupadam, M.A., Chittoor Deputy Commissioner (CT) Date : 18-11-1995 D.O. on Ref. C3.4741/95 Dear Sir, Sub. : A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 - Chittoor Division - Certain instructions issued on - Collection tax on the movement of G. Nuts & G.N. Seed - Reg. I invite your personal attention to the subject cited and inform that instances have come to the notice of the undersigned that some of the assessing authority and check-post officers are not collecting advance tax on the transport of groundnuts and groundnut seeds. In supersession of all the instructions issued earlier on this subject, all the assessing authorities, officers at observations and check-post should collect tax on the movement of groundnuts or groundnut seeds irrespective of the fact, whether the transporters are traders or millers or ryots relating by this division or other division. If tax is collected from the dealers of the other circles or divisions, the advice of collection shall be sent to the area concerned immediately. I am to further impress upon you that the revenue position of the division is precarious and every possible effort shall be made to boost up the revenue position of the division by all means. The officers who allow the vehicle transporting groundnut and groundnut seeds without collection of advance tax shall be dealt with severely. t.c.b.o. Yours faithfully, Sd/- D. YESUPADAM" In response to rule nisi, the third respondent has filed counter-affidavit defending the action. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the impugned circular issued by the third respondent is without authority of law and therefore the officers of the department and the officers at check-posts cannot insist for payment of tax in advance. Although the third respondent has chosen to file counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition, he did not trace his authority to issue such circular with reference to any provisions of the APGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder or otherwise. Although the third respondent has chosen to file counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition, he did not trace his authority to issue such circular with reference to any provisions of the APGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder or otherwise. It is trite to state that when a statutory authority acts in performance of its duties, functions and powers, any action taken by it must be traceable to an authority granted by the statute and if such action cannot be traced to an authority granted by the statute, such action would be deemed as ultra vires of the statute. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes was not in a position to bring to our notice any provision of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which grants power to the third respondent to issue the impugned circular directing his subordinate officers to insist for payment of advance tax at the check-posts. Therefore, the impugned circular should be held to be a nullity in the eye of law. In taking this opinion, we are also fortified by the judgment in Ramanadh Poultry Farms v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer [1999] 114 STC 140 (AP). In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned circular is quashed. No costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.