When transportation costs are incurred in bringing non-resident employees to a place of work in India and expenditure is also included in transporting them back to their foreign residence, the question of fringe benefit tax may arise. The dispute on this point has recently been settled by the Supreme Court, which was required to consider a ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings. Section 115-WB(1) contains the interpretation section. It is in two parts. It provides for a direct meaning, as also an expanded meaning. The expanded meaning of the provision is contained in sub-section (2). Whereas sub-section (1) takes within its sweep any consideration for employment, inter alia, by way of privilege, service, facility or amenity directly or indirectly, sub-section (2) thereof expands the definition stating as to when the fringe benefit would be deemed to have been provided. The expansive meaning of the term "benefits" by reason of a legal fiction created also brings within its purview, benefits, which would be deemed to have been provided by the employer to his employees during the previous year. Indisputably, sub-section (3) refers to sub-section (1) only. Ex facie, it does not have any application in regard to the matters, which have been brought within the purview of the fringe benefit tax by reason of application of the deeming provision. The Supreme Court in R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd v CIT (301 I.T.R. 309) was concerned with the question in regard to grant of exemption in respect of "conveyance" as provided for in sub-section (2)(F) and "tour and travel", which is covered by section 115-WB(2)(Q). Whereas sub-section (1) envisages any amount paid to the employee by way of consideration for employment, the limits thereof are enumerated in sub-section (2). The court was of the opinion that sub-sections (1) and (2), having regard to the provisions of section 115-WA as also section 115-WB (3), must be held to be operating in different fields. The court did not agree with the submission of the assessee that any benefit or amenity in the nature of free or subsidised transport provided by the employer to his employee mentioned in sub-section (3) are covered only by clauses (F) and (Q) of sub-section (2). The court observed that the employees concerned are experts in their field. They are necessarily residents of other countries. They are brought to the rig by providing air tickets from their place of residence to the rig. Thus, the employer incurs the expenditure as of necessity. It, therefore, clearly falls within the purview of the words "consideration for employment". If fringe benefits are provided as consideration for employment and given to employees by way of an amenity, reimbursement or otherwise, section (1)(a) would be attracted. A statute, as is well known, must be read in its entirety. What would be the subject matter of tax is contained in sub-sections (1) and (2). Sub-section (3), therefore, provides for an exemption. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the latter part of the contents of sub-section (3) must be given its logical meaning. Thus, when the expenditure incurred by the employer so as to enable an employee to undertake a journey from his place of residence to the place of work or either reimbursement of the amount of the journey or free tickets therefore are provided, the same would come within the purview of the term "by way of reimbursement or otherwise". The Advanced Law Lexicon defines "otherwise" as, "by other likely means; contrarily; different from that to which it relates; in a different manner; in another way; in any other way; differently in other respects in different respects; in some other like capacity." "Otherwise" is defined by the Standard Dictionary as meaning "in a different manner, in another way; differently in other respects". Webster Dictionary defines it: "in a different manner; in other respects". As a general rule, "otherwise" when following an enumeration, should receive an ejusdem generis interpretation (per Cleasby, B Monck v Hilton, 46 LJMC 167), The words "or otherwise", in law, when used as a general phrase following an enumeration of particulars, are commonly interpreted in a restricted sense, as referring to such other matters as are kindred to the classes before mentioned. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statute should ordinarily be given a purposive construction. (New India Assurance Company Ltd v Nusli Neville Wadia (14 Scale 556); Tanna and Modi v CIT (8 Scale 511) and Udai Singh Dagar v Union of India (7 Scale 278). Parliament, in introducing the concept of fringe benefits, was clear in its mind in so far as on the one hand it avoided imposition of double taxation, i.e., tax both on the hands of the employees and employers; on the other, it intended to bring succour to the employees offering some privilege, service, facility or amenity, which was otherwise thought to be necessary or expedient. If any other construction is put on sub-sections (1) and (3), the purpose of grant of exemption would be defeated. It is a well-settled principle of law that the court should avoid such constructions, which would render a part of the statutory provision otiose or meaningless. (Visitor v KS Misra (8 SCC 593); Commissioner of Sales Tax v Shri Krishna Engg Co (2 SCC 692).) The Supreme Court held that the Authority for Advance Rulings was right in its ruling that the matters enumerated in section 115-WB(2) are not covered by sub-section (3) thereof, and the amenity in the nature of free or subsidised transport is covered by sub-section (1). The final question was whether the employees should be a resident of India. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not say so. Fringe benefit tax being a tax on expenditure, the only concern of the revenue should be whether such expenditure has been incurred. The appellant-company has a permanent establishment in India. It pays income tax in India. It carries on business in India. It has for the purpose of carrying out its business activities, engaged persons from within India or outside India. The apex concluded that if an employer incurs any travel expenditure for bringing employees from abroad, it would liable to the fringe benefit tax under section 115-WB(1). The exemption under sub-section (3) would not be applicable.